Im not changing the topic, im leaping outside the topic! I'm going to use that, the next time i have to change the topic of conversation in my favor! 😂
@@armandoerazo2482 The point of Dawkins and alike is, that religions are made up fairy tales with no true value and evil!! JP argued displayed how nothing of that is true. Apparently you didn’t get that.
Too many people like yourself don't understand why it's important to do this. This is what we do in psychotherapy and also coaching. He's adopting the outside looking in perspective and is integral to the practice. All this conclusions from people who don't know.
@@armandoerazo2482Jordan does this to cultivate thoughts for discussion. Dawkins just wasn’t interested in the discussion and he had his babysitter/mediator there to protect his cowardly stance of hiding behind fact vs. fiction. I applaud Jordan for his attempt, but maybe Dawkins is better off not taking interviews.
Virgin birth... LITERAL or METAPHOR? It's as straight forward and simple as a question can be. Peterson HAS to change the subject. If Peterson answers "Metaphor" then IS he a True Christian? or just a "Cultural Christian?"
Dawkins: Do you believe Santa Claus comes down children's chimneys at Christmas? Peterson: Well that's a complicated question.....here's a word salad that avoids the question entirely. That's basically 90% of the debate.
JP uses way too many words to convey his ideas. Most of the time we do finally understand what he is driving at, but he should just "cut to the chase" more often.
@@eulipion From a listener's perspective he does, but it's his way of thinking through his own understanding and there's really no way around it. It makes sense if you follow his linear thinking but it requires more time and mental strain.
@@dominickjuarez5461 I've listened very closely and I'm astounded at his inability to answer simple questions...well...no...I take that back, it's not that he doesn't have the ability, it's that he's afraid of losing his audience if he's straight forward about what he actually believes and doesn't believe.
Dawkins and everyone who watched this interview can appreciate the allegorical value of stories, religious and non-religious alike. The issue is that JP here doesn't really make any valid point as to why a biologist should be brought into a conversation about mythology. Toward the very end, he comes close to making some semblance of a connection, but then the video hits you with a Daily Wire paywall.
Yes but nobody goes around saying the boy who cried wolf is God's word or that the author had some divine knowledge, or that you're "lost" or going to hell if you don't think it literally happened. Nor does anyone want to kill you if you disagree about the meaning. That's the difference. If we could treat religious texts in the same way we treat the boy who cried wolf, that'd be great.
@@Bob-v6h8t biology is a scientific study and the Bible is not a scientific document. It's not important whether or not a virgin was able to undergo immaculate conception. The important part is what is the meaning in her conceiving this way? The biology point is akin to arguing that wolves would never behave the way they do in the "the boy who cried wolf" and thus the entire story is meaninglessness.
I used to admire people good with words like Russell Brand and Peterson, but now they seem too meandering. Talking is an art that I still like, but I think being concise is an important element.
Both of them talk that way to make what they're saying sound smarter than it actually is. Most of the time, including in this video, if Peterson was "straight to the point", everyone would see his point was actually not that great.
@@Djanck000 I'm sure in many cases people are pretentious when talking, but I'm one of the people that really likes poetry, literature, and use of words. It's like an art form to me, similar to painting or drawing.
@@Djanck000 You should watch J. Peterson talk to Richard Dawkins on Peterson's podcast, it was embarrassing honestly. The first talk he did with Dawkins, Peterson rambled on and on. It was like a monologue and Dawkins was invited to hear Peterson ramble.
So Peterson reads the Bible from a metaphorical perspective and not a literal one. He sees value in the metaphors and believes that these metaphors enlighten humanity with truths that are of a spiritual nature and in this sense sees the Bible as a divinely inspired guide. Dawkins sees the text as literally untrue on a scientific factual basis so cannot view it as a spiritual or divine text. The problem with reading the text as metaphorical is that it doesn't prove divinity as you can conceivably open any book and find metaphorical meaning if you're looking for it. The fact that the Bible is almost completely metaphor doesn't make it any more divine than any other book. I can see value in reading it as an interesting study in metaphor and even applying some inspiration that you derive from it but this is quite different than believing it's the word of God and every letter is divinely inspired and that to deviate from it is a spiritual death sentence, as so many Christians believe.
If a society chooses to believe the words of the bible, and act them out, and doing so consistently leads to better outcomes than socities who choose to do otherwise, this is, in itsself, evidence of a form of truth. this is what those who are locked into the so called scientific mind set cannot seem to understand. there are more ways to quantify truth than simply measuring or weighing...
the lens of scientific sight viewing every little thing around the world is recently invented method not long ago. people mistake constantly that our feelings are same with those lived in antiquity but it’s not. Reasons in thoughts and reasons in feelings have mutual dependency but modern human lack this reasons in feelings. Primal people just had different language describing the world than us. our modern language simply categorise the terms in hyper details it might be just gotten merely many names but if you rewind all the way back to the origin of every evolutions including language,civilisation,actions,feelings,thoughts etc you inevitably encounter What is so called ‘God’ or ‘Spirit’ or ‘Demon’. Biological dragon is not real but the Spirit of Dragon is real and the concept of it, it’s features can anytime appear in anywhere whether that’d be in your household or largely as a nation.
@@rosstituteukThat's a weird take. It might lend itself to say that the philosophy is a good one, but has no bearing on the truth of the supernatural claims.
JP is a smart man. He knows that every discussion regarding the bible played on the playing field of objective truth is a lost battle for him. He tries hard to change the playing field to some sort of metaphorical moral truth, knowing that this basically disarms Richard. The problem that arises is that “truth” does not exist on the playing ground that JP tries to establish. That’s why till this day religious people are still arguing about the meaning of a religious text. Everyone can be right or wrong in this context, it depends on what you DECIDE to believe. JP in that sense is like a chess player who knows he cannot win, and plays the game from the start in such a way that at least he at least won’t lose. Such a discussion is basically useless.
"it depends on what you DECIDE to believe" - it seems this is what the Christian text itself demands. Faith, and the foolishness of the preachiing of the gospel, is the only path given in them. Signs and wisdom (as means of knowing God) are rejected in them. So in a way, JP struggles against God himself. He'd do better playing the skeptics skeptic, showing how the claims of atheism are fundamentally flawed in their unprovable, underlying assumptions. I saw him do this in a debate with Dillahunty and he rocked.
@@Sojourning-e1n what are you talking about??? You know the first miracle Jesus performs in the New Testament is turning water into wine? Well normally that'd be a rather pointless miracle, but John (the author) also gives the reason for why Jesus turning water into wine was so important: John 2:11 "What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him." it even says ' the first of the _signs_', meaning he performed multiple. Today, signs are given to people who then become Christian on that basis all the time, all over the world. I myself asked God to prove he exists to me if he wanted me to believe in him and, after I prayed with all my heart, God gave me 3 signs where he showed himself as Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Signs are not rejected at all in Scripture as a way to come to faith, and Jesus himself was constantly performing miracles as signs on the basis of which people should believe.
@@cookedporkchop400 I'm glad you are saved! And that the Lord manifested himself to you! I believe you. But I'm not speaking of the miracles of Christ's day, nor of those that occur even today in this age. Please reread my point again with emphasis on the parenthetical "as a means of knowing God". Then ask yourself how you knew to cry out to him, and how you knew who you were crying out to, and how you recognized him when he answered, if it were not because you first heard the Gospel. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishnes But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Co 1:21-25
@@Sojourning-e1n Ah, I see. Misunderstood you. Your phrasing is a little too heavy to digest as a mere comment on a UA-cam video. I would say that you are right in my case. But there are plenty of documented cases of people from lands where they'd never heard the gospel message before - for example many Muslims - who come to Christ after asking Allah to reveal himself to them, and seeing Jesus. After they see Jesus, they know to seek the rest of Christianity by looking into him - or sometimes just ignore it in spite of that. So I don't think it has to be the Gospel message that comes first on the path towards Christianity.
Two polar opposite minds pursuing truth in totally the opposite directions. Literal vs Metaphoric. The idea of getting these two positions together in the same room for a conversation was a great one - but unfortunately it didn't work. Neither can understand why the other can't see the profoundness that they believe comes from their disciplines.
That’s really not accurate. Jordan is definitely capable of understanding and appreciating where Richard is coming from. It’s more that Richard can’t get to where Jordan is.
@@JonnyCook no he can. richard asked a question about literal truth, and jordan couldnt answer it, he resorted to metaphors even though thats clearly not the kind of truth richard was talking about
alex even tried to bridge the gap with jordan by saying yes we know your talking about metaphorical interpretations but did these events literally happen. he is just unable to engage with that.
It's more of a battle of one dogma versus not fully developed dogma, meaning Dawkins says less about what one ought to do or believe, whilst Peterson seems to want to direct people to do well for themselves first in order not to crumble in philosophical pursuit. That's why I sort of find their arguments only to be taken as a way to develop better philosophy out of
I can't believe that Jordan Peterson put this on his own channel. Wow, he can answer a million other questions in an instant -- no hesitation -- but the virgin birth he can't say. Isn't it utterly transparent to everyone that he is AVOIDING answering? It's embarrassing to watch him.
I get it. There are countless questions my children ask me about God and the Bible that sadly I cannot answer, no one can. Even someone as well read as Peterson can’t be expected to have all the answers. I actually appreciate when he says he can’t answer rather than talk out his behind. Even the ones who believe in evolution don’t have ALL the answers. We are human and will not know until we pass. As for me I’m going to stick with what my faith and heart tells me that’s taken years of life experience to believe. Also, I feel some of these questions are meant to be “gotcha” moments, that the questioner doesn’t want an answer but only to trip up the other and shut down conversation.
@@BFNLEOHow is it a gotcha? All you have to say is “I believe the story is true as presented” or “this particular bit is probably made up”. Neither one is taking a firm stance, and i refuse to believe neither you or Peterson has an opinion on the actual question. I can firmly say i dont believe the virgin birth or most of the other mystical claims in the bible; answering dawkins question, and then go on to say that societies are organized around ideas not facts, so regardless of the historical facts that we cant ever truly know we can find philosophical truths in the stories. It didnt matter to romans if romulus and remus were actually raised by a she wolf.
It’s too bad that Peterson is not a Christian. He’s stuck trying to give a scientifically acceptable answer. I’m not sure there is one. But I do believe that, if God exists, then miracles are possible. They are probably even necessary.
The man clearly said “I don’t know” multiple times. I don’t get why you and those two are not satisfied with that. If he dosen’t know, he dosen’t know.
@@Buljaadin I have the highest respect for Dr. Peterson. My hope is that he will accept the benefits of salvation. You see, even though I now only know in part, I can say that yes, I believe Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, died, and on the third day rose from the dead.
Dawkins previous explained in another interview what he meant by "Cultural Christian", and it was that he acknowledged Christian societies produced the only societies he would ever want to live in, given the choice. That's not "Virtually nothing". That's a full admittance that Christian culture obvious got many things right that other cultures have not, but he's not going to say that to you, because that would be conceding to your point. Dawkins can't allow that. Dawkins is a debater. He's not even going to agree with himself if he's put in a corner. He'll always make an argument against the current "thing" as to not give any 'win' to his opponent, consistency be damned.
Well this is one of the many problems with Dawkins - he claims Christianity has absolutely no value except that it literally was one of the primary influences on all of modern society, medicine, intellect, science, government, education, etc. Without Christianity we'd we wandering aimlessly in the desert. It's easy to assume otherwise, but that's not very scientific.
The missing part from your analysis is that all of us are literally and figuratively "cultural christians", why? Because we are pushed, trained, conditioned and punished if we don't follow the societal rules imprinted by the memes and cultural inheritance in our society. The root difference is that Christian culture is way less severe in comparison with Islam, but still have a massive influence nonetheless by the use of mythical archetypes and stories that were and still badly translated, that's the reason why there's so many ramifications of the same Christian principles that became also religions. Christianity so to speak an make it simple it's the amalgamation of societal rules and dynamics of different cultures during history that led to what it is now, the best comparison would be manicheism, because back in the day, christians and catholics would butcher and kill people out of their interests and say it was God's providence and will.
@@bioshin morover we should say, that despite christianity we progressed. When it had a full sway on our culture we had religious wars between christian factions and influenced not just the day to day lives of the common people but the highest levels of dimplomacy.
@@lakermangmx As every other not western religion had to at some point in history even with the ones who disappeared from the memories of humanity, and that's what conservative religious modern philosophers don't understand. There's no common ground between Dawkins and Peterson and that's because the root and core issue is human nature and stupidity, you can't blindly make one of the most proficient minds in the field of science low his intelligence and consciousness down to an average citizen with the capability of being gullible enough to still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy because they are beyond the realm of symbolism, something needed for the below average in intelligence mass of people around the world. If he wasn't intelligent enough how Dawkins would be what he's now, and what makes you think that someone with his level of intelligence could fall trap of stories like being born out of virgin woman? I once heard someone's says that religion, at least Christianity, was the religion of the noble, being the noble the humble and poor by concept, because they needed something to believe in and justify their poor luck, while the wealthy and intelligent didn't need any type of beliefs, because they were beyond the boundaries of ignorance, since they were allowed to do everything, because they knew how to do it with little to no consequences...
@@lakermangmx @lakermangmx As every other not western religion had to at some point in history even with the ones who disappeared from the memories of humanity, and that's what conservative religious modern philosophers don't understand. There's no common ground between Dawkins and Peterson and that's because the root and core issue is human nature and stupidity, you can't blindly make one of the most proficient minds in the field of science low his intelligence and consciousness down to an average citizen with the capability of being gullible enough to still believe in the tooth fairy because they are beyond the realm of symbolism, something needed for the below average in intelligence mass of people around the world. If he wasn't intelligent enough how Dawkins would be what he's now? I once heard someone's says that religion, at least Christianity, was the religion of the noble, being the noble the humble and poor by concept, because they needed something to believe in and justify their poor luck, while the wealthy and intelligent didn't need any type of beliefs, because they were beyond the boundaries of ignorance, since they were allowed to do everything, because they knew how to do it with little to no consequences...
Great content as always! I admire both of these men ! They have changed my life for the better with their books and knowledge. They are great conversationalist. This is what America needs.
Jordan is a psychologist which is possibly a reason for his overthinking and long monologues. Dawkins is a biologist I think and sees the world in a purely physical way. A possible reason why he, in contrast to Dr Peterson, is more of a minimalist thinker who gives short and direct answers and is less likely to stray off subject. I have great respect for both men but JBP's more sympathetic approach to Christianity and his willingness to mix science and faith have me leaning more favourably towards him as a Christian myself
I feel like JP fears to accept the miracles in the Bible as he is so close yet so far to accept the Christian faith as it would basically requite utmost humility for him to just simply say ‘I don’t know everything about God’
I don't think he was stumped per say. They are viewing the Bible totally different. To Jordan it doesn't matter if Jesus was born of a virgin. The morals still hold. Dawkins on the other hand, if you say Jesus was not born of a virgin will throw out the entire Bible. If he says Jesus was born of a virgin, he will still disregard the entire Bible and call him a fool, then ask for proof.
@@theterribleyoutuber7376 Meh. JP deliberately conflates appreciation of Biblical stories with actual belief in them. It's his whole schtick. Dawkins is simply saying that he doesn't believe that appreciating Christian ideas is the same as being Christian.
dawkins is almost impossibly closeminded for an accomplished scientist. you can be an athiest and notice that christianity founded our current morals. edit: (Founded most of) because reddit atheist are crying at me. im an athiest and not making a value claim. christianities influence on western morals is widespread and very well documented. stop blabbing your ignorance to me.
he judges islam but if he doesnt have an argument for his morals based on anything but his feelings. then he isnt really thinking any deeper than those he judges.
Nonsense. Moral values are opinions. "(Insert Behavior) is good" and "(Insert Behavior) is bad" are subjective opinions by default. There is no getting around the fact of how those terms work. Everyone in the world can agree on an opinion, but it's still an opinion and therefore subjective. To claim otherwise would be an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. As for our laws, self-interest is what founded the laws of our society. Go all the way back to primitive eras, and it's basically, "Hey, that big caveman keeps bonking us on the head and taking our stuff. Let's get together and punish him and then make it a rule that anyone who tries doing what he did will meet the same consequence." It boils down to self-interested people deciding that preventing certain things from happening to them is more valuable than having the freedom to do those things to others.
@@Bob-v6h8tthere are literally morals and opinions that keep societies and humanity alive. Without them we will literally delete ourselves so your argument is not that good
@@Bob-v6h8t while you answer is both simplistic, shallow, and only partially historically accurate. its still light years ahead of what dawkins said in this video. he chuckles that being above islams barbarism is barely a feat while rarely ever justifying his own moral framework. his morals seem to be plucked straight from those around him which would make him no better than the muslims tossing people off roofs. dawkins refusal to even engage with abstract concepts is not anything to admire.
They can't agree that both religion and science, are saving and destroying the world at the same time because that would mean science is subordinate if the good wins, and Dawkins can't have that. I got that from his last sentence.
I don’t believe God can be understood scientifically or intellectually simple because He is outside of the concept of time, matter and space. If we can prove his existence, the very idea of “faith and belief without seeing” (John 20:28-29) would seize to exist.
As a devout christian, well done dawkins. Peterson needs to respect boundaries and not call himself a Christian if he doesnt believe in the literal realities of Christian orthodoxy, christs divinity, virgin birth etc etc...
Peterson clearly believes in a spiritual truth. His overvaluing of mythological truths in the Christian doctrine implies that he believes that the canonical history of Christianity, in their biblical stories, represents some kind of divine dialogue by the human race with itself. The dialogue in question will, in his mind, uncover a divine or universal truth to mankind. Which is fine, since he can be Christian, as much as he can believe in anything else he wants, but his eagerness to jump through hoops to avoid being labeled religious is a bit ridiculous to me. I have an idea as to why he is like this but I written enough of my opinion.
I think that peterson doesnt actually believe the history, he just likes the stories as being a cornerstone of modern western civilization. Thats why he typically dodges fact based questions.
Well, when you put like 45 years of study into the complexities of psychology and myth, you're bound to think 10 answers to every question on these subjects. Joseph Campbell would have done the same thing.
He sure sounded like a Christian when he went on Pints with Aquinas. On that podcast he called atheism an “illegal chess move” and did a deep analysis on biblical themes
Alex O'Connor keeps them both very good on topic! Very impressed by that. He keeps the conversation within the boundries. I like JP, but religion does weird things to people. Dawkins all the way here
@@Typexviiib What do you mean philosophical truth? He says the ideas/ memes/ Jungian Archetyps express themself in metaphor and have a biological foundation, which is why they emerge cross culturally!! What’s so hard to grasp and understand?!? Biologists or atheists always dismissed religion as fairy tails with no link to science or truth, yet JP argued exactly against that assumption that religions have no truth value and contain no wisdom or morals worth exploring. What’s so hard to grasp to so many critiques of JP is a mystery to me !!! He didn’t form arguments for the existence of the christian GOD. He refuted the atheist claims about what religions are and their use or their truth value !!!
@@thenicolascage4355 Tragic. He gets a yes, no or I don't know answer and desperately rambles on about morality in history. You can clearly see even Dawkins doesn't take him serious anymore as does the other boy. He just can't handle him being ignorant and he lets his ego desperately preach about random terms and rambles about and hopes Dawkins nods a few times, and he can sit back and relax and pretend he answered a question.
This might look like a stretch, but they aren’t entirely at odds here. Dawkins views the christian aspect of his upbringing as a foundational part of his cultural identity, acknowledging-even if somewhat taking for granted-that it's impossible to fully dissociate the values he considers 'elevated' from their christian roots. He often tries to frame this in purely logical terms, almost to the point of overlooking its deeper implications. Meanwhile, when Peterson speaks about how stories, myths, and metaphors shape our worldview, he's not exactly contradicting Dawkins. Instead, he seems to focus more in the language of the argument than in the core idea. Overall, it's not totally opposite views.
Yeah, Peterson pipes up a lot as if he disagrees but a couple sentences later and it’s up in smoke. He’s like a dancing boxer who only throws fakes. It’s not clear to me if he even knows if he disagrees with Dawkins or not.
@@mojo9291 “if he only accepted what JP says, they wouldn’t disagree” LOL argument 101. By the time JP expressed something about Christian values and hierarchy Dawkins very very clearly explained what he agreed with and what he didn’t in two short sentences. What’s entirely unclear from this conversation is how JP has decided to reconcile belief with facts. I’m not convinced he has decided. And as far as I can tell that’s Dawkins’ primary query, even if it’s not JPs.
Watching just a few minutes of this debate made me feel so uncomfortable towards Peterson. Dawkins destroyed his credibility with very easy and simple questions. Peterson is a scam selling books to weak people searching for a cult.
Why are you guys hating on JP? I think he gave responsible answers to really complicated theological and historical questions as a psychologist and political scientist. It is true that JP will surely go on a search after that exchange with Dawkins, but it is not about WINNING an argument here, but growing intellectually. Y'all people are kinda just eager for entertainment and a battle arena. Also the "moderator" seemed to be on the side of Dawkins, which should never be a case in a moderation
"The truth of science gets us to the moon." Science is a process. Science is not a truth claim in itself. That's where Dawkins' argument starts to collapse
He's talking about that process when he says that. Scientific research and the application of the results of that research are what get us to the moon. He and most everyone out there realize what science refers to.
JP so badly wants to understand God with the rational mind. It's genuine. But you cannot understand God with the rational mind. You can talk around him and close as a silhouette. But it comes that the intellect, becomes the primary boundary to God, once you reach JP levels of brilliant study. A bit paradoxical. Where mentation meets the boundary of God, then mention needs to be dropped. And the practice of silencing the mind needs to begin, meditation. You cannot know God intellectually.
@@Moltenstardeaththe biblical texts that are the whole identity of God says it's impossible for a mortal creature which is man to comprehend that which spirit which is God
This entire conversation is reminding me of this quote (was it Einstein who said it? ): "The rational mind is a faithful servant and the intuitive mind is a precious gift. We live in a society that honors the servant but has forgotten the gift". It was Iain McGilchrist who reminded me of this quote. I believe the reason it's coming to mind is that it "appears" that these two perspectives are possibly left hemisphere vs right hemisphere views.....both of which have immense value...and both of which are "true" in their own ways. They are each "the view" of different aspects of reality. There is no need to argue over which view is "right" because they both are. If we can agree on that, the only remaining question is "when" to use one approach over the other. Personally I use a combination of these two approaches (and I think every human with a normally functioning brain does...even if they're not aware if it). What is it in us?....is it conditioning?....that keeps us feeling that only one of these approaches can be "right". Once we recognize the value of each we can consciously "choose" either...or a combination of both... based on their usefulness for whatever we're attempting to understand or accomplish. I often, "consciously" flip back and forth multiple times between these two approaches before deciding which, if not a customized combination of both, is the most useful in producing an overall good outcome. Wouldn't want to live any other way! I really feel the only problem here comes from turning this into a zero sum question. Dawkins is, no doubt, a left hemisphere genius... and his assertion that scientific fact is in a "whole other league" fits right in with McGilchrist's assertion that the left hemisphere doesn't know what it doesn't know...has a very high opinion of itself...and can't recognize the value of it's opposite hemisphere (which is a feature the right hemisphere doesn't share). This is not an insult to Dawkins...It's just the downside of the left hemisphere in general. No one, including me, would argue his intelligence...and thank goodness for people with this type and level of intelligence. I really feel the only problem here comes from turning this into a competition. Dawkins "wins in his arena hands down, but seems not to have the intuitive recognition of the power and necessity of myth to inform us in the matters of "the other half..."the invisible half" of existence...in which science fails to be of use in explaining. It may just be a matter of "everyone has their strengths"...(as each hemisphere has it's strengths) and strengths usually tend to be accompanied by weaknesses in some other arena.
The paradox of Peterson’s instrumentalism in religion is that while it leads one to adhere to religious practices, it lacks the intrinsic commitment of genuine faith, which is essential for personal change. Instrumentalism treats beliefs and practices as means to an end. This is ontologically incompatible with faith, which calls for an intrinsic commitment. In essence, while Peterson’s approach may inspire a form of religious praxis, it cannot access the deeper, transformative potential of faith. True faith requires a surrender to meaning beyond utility of “metaphor” or some narrative, something that instrumentalism, by its nature, resists, creating a tension between practice and genuine transformation. Thus, while instrumentalism might preserve religious observance, it ultimately lacks the ontological depth to facilitate the profound change that faith brings.
I’m an Omnist, and for the most part agreed with Peterson on a lot of his points here. But I will admit that I can’t deny Dawkins ending remark here. I’m about to watch the whole debate, but the question that what factual scientific truth has done for humanity is off the charts in comparison to metaphorical and value predicated truth. Because of science, we can literally raise people from the dead using electricity. Something only imagined of in fiction admittedly. Because of science we know how our own bodies might be wanting to kill us, and form a defence against it. We’ve cured so many diseases. I think Dawkins just fell short as he was talking about flying cars and going to other planets; like that’s something to write home about.
JOHN 9 : 40-41 Some Pharisees who were standing nearby heard Him and asked, “Are you saying we’re blind?” “If you were blind, you wouldn’t be guilty,” Jesus replied. “But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.” NLT
They are arguing differently points is the problem, religion is not science, and science is not religion They both have a purpose and there isn't much overlap
Agree, I haven't listened to the entire episode but I think this was enough for me to realise that you need evidence to prove or disprove something. There is also a 3rd option which is "we don't know" because no evidence or not enough evidence. It is a story so probably some truth in there but how much is anyone's guess
Dawkins relishing in sewing seeds of doubt and I am somewhat disappointed in Peterson. I'm not disappointed in him for admitting he doesn't know. I'm disappointed that he could let one question bring down the conversation. He so early on allows himself to get dismantled by a predictable trap. The answer to this question for a Christian is different than the answer is for a non believer scholar. The answer for a Christian is that faith is a requirement from God in order to enter His kingdom. If you believe based on faith that Jesus is his Son then you also know that he was surrounded by miracles that should have alerted those around him that he was indeed the Son of God. The virgin birth is another miracle in this context, in my opinion.
He got caught up on nothing. Of course, no one can "prove" the virgin birth any more than we can scientifically prove God. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can't prove there are parallel universes - but that doesn't mean they don't exist. JBP needed to put that back on Dawkins. He claims to base everything on science but science can't explain the existence of the universe, DNA or people. So I guess that means the rest of science can't be trusted?!
he refused to be dismantled by the predictable trap by refusing to answer a question that is obtuse in its origin. those engaged in this discussion, in good faith, understand that the deeper point does not revolve around whether certain events took place or not, but rather, what effect it has on a culture / society, should that society choose to believe the words, as they are written...
@@rosstituteuk I can see where you are coming from. I do think he is sort of opting out by his answers. It just really appears as if Dawkins isn't even engaged in certain parts of the conversation. He is drunk on factuality. Kind of feels like they are missing each other but no surprises there I guess.
"The answer for a Christian is that faith is a requirement from God in order to enter His kingdom" Faith is there however just the denial of limitations of reality. Hence that is why hearsay about miracles became so sturdy. This already starts with the denial that thinking is a process: From 1 chain to the next chain or the denial that it needs a thinking organ to be processed. Like god shall be timeless - not having even a second to chain thoughts together or any brain to process the thinking activity. That is why a god is a slogan to caste away the attention focus from the too obvious denial about certain truthes. Like the denial of the own limited lifespan (denial of the own mortality) or something profound as the denial of the order of historical events. A mundane example is that certain activities such as the _to create_ or _to design_ activity shall be older in time than other activities. In the actual history certain activities like absorbing nutrients performed by single cells in ancient oceans is actually hundreds of millions of years older in time than the origin age of the _to design_ activity. This is why nothing in life or the universe can be any result of any creation. Because this is not how history and the order of it works and why the _to create_ activity's origin is more recent in later time periods. In theism such as christianity the denial of the actual order of historical events is a feature - rather than a mistake. Just like the virgin birth is a feature for the denialism of annoyingly limitating biological reasons. It is like that someone points out that in reality mothers give birth to their sons and this huge factual limitation that it is not reversible leads to some people being emotionally very unhappy with this mundane fact - and so they try to sell the denial as a virtue to say: My god or text about my god can make it that sons give birth to their mothers! Despite of it being just a romantisized rephrasing of the denialism due to being annoyed about the limitations within reality that parents having children and not vice versa. That is why God shall hear prayers - meaning air vibration, despite of having no hearing organs such as ears to do so and to perform the process of hearing. Such as hearing would be an annoying reminder of what is actually truthful. I never encounter any theist to tackle this issue in "good faith". Theists I did encounter never tried to engage to face the specific denialism of limitation & boundery parts within reality.
Atheists generally don't have a problem with religion as literature or metaphor. The atheist's problem with religion is threefold: The supernatural claims, the claim to the historicity of the text, and the claim to ultimate moral authority. Being an evolutionary biologist and teacher, Richard Dawkins has had to spend his life defending his work against religious people who make these claims. Jordan Peterson has gained fame and fortune from religious people by avoiding these three claims like the plague, and he knows it. I only wish that Richard Dawkins would have pushed harder, but he seems like a kind and patient person. This was even more evident the first time he was interviewed by JP. Dawkins was practically a saint. This interview put the arrogant self affirmation of religion on full display. JP could have traded his self affirmation for curiosity like he has with other guests. From reading Dawkin's books I find him to be someone who is genuinely fascinated with the natural world. I can relate to that. Unfortunately the only interviews I can ever find with Richard Dawkins are either conducted by people who don't know enough to ask good questions, or by religious people who are trying to score points. I for one would love to hear about his childhood in Africa, or his favorite animal and why, his opinion on the decline of monogomy, what it was like working with Christopher Hitchens, if he has any ideas on the origin of language,... I could keep going. I thought JP would be the guy to conduct a good interview..... yeah. As Christopher Hitchens would say, "religion poisons everything." This time the poison killed curiosity.
hey as a Christian I naturally disagree with you a bit, but I agree it would be nicer to hear more about Dawkins as a person than just him debating and defending his beliefs all the time! I don't think Jordan is avoiding the questions because he gets paid by religious people. most serious Christians I know think his takes on the Bible are often laughable since he misquotes it constantly and misappropriates quotes to different characters constantly, but ultimately we appreciate his open mindedness towards at least encouraging people to read the thing and see for themselves if they can take something of value out of it. definitely wish Jordan had done a better job here. Dawkins is an interesting guy beyond simply his debates on religion
Why place Islam on a lower level than Christianity if you are an atheist? Why is virtue an achievement? What is virtue and why and how can we say it is a good thing? Dawkins is a solid materialist, who does not seem to understand or appreciate that faith is the basis of all human conceptions.
Peterson is desperately rambling about and chaotically throwing about useless irrelevant terms hoping Dawkins will simply say, that is correct to something irrelevant to anything. He was simply agreeing which religion has made the most or least progress on morality on a global scale. Seeing as most developed countries do not define themselves by a religion, the ones that do are often aligned with the Islamic faith. Regarding the multi-cultural societies that share different religious views with different groups, the levels would be different. But as an atheist I do judge Judaism and Islam as being in every level lesser. Seeing as they mutilate babies and cut away body parts without any medical reason, adding risks to their healthy even. Tragically, even when looking at all religious people only few of those religions despise that.
@@SOSULLI You just demonstrate you don't understand what is being discussed. Dawkins is a strict materialist, as you might be, which is why he is flummoxed at any argument not based upon materialism.
@@thomassenbart I'm perfectly aware on Dawkins and his views. Your assumption on whether there is an understanding lays on Peterson himself. He is faced with his ignorance and babbles on going into morale and ethics in history and Dawkins, like you said being a materialist and such a question, does not take him serious in any form. That is why he simply answered one of Peterson's irrelevant questions simply, instead of satisfying Peterson by going deeply into it. Seeing as Peterson would like nothing more than to avoid the question and pretend he is the expert with his ego babbling on, using useless terms. So I'm guessing if Dawkins would have disagreed he knew he would start a different discussion on levels of morale, which like you said is not relevant to him at that time. So obviously I hope you do not think that regarding the truth and facts he had set no levels, especially as he clearly stated on the bible it was made up, if there was any truth at all, so he is kind of set on the bible possibly being completely made up with no truth, making relevant levels of truth and facts impossible.
@@SOSULLI I would not make the assertion that anything Peterson says is egocentric. He searches for truth and has rejected materialism as a means to that end. I would say he is much further along that path than say M. Dawkins. I did not hear Peterson say that the Bible was made up are you referring to M. Dawkins? Peterson's basic premise is that narrative drives reality as a frame from which all derives. So, the story, is reality is multiple senses, and the truths derived from it are relevant again from multiple perspectives. If, however, one is only concerned with matter itself and have no concerns beyond that, it's like teaching philosophy to a stone and Peterson's message becomes irrelevant.
@@thomassenbart That makes no sense. Do you watch any debates of Dawkins? He has a lot of different views on morale and the development of religion. He doesn't acclaim, well it didn't happen so we're done here. You're implying Peterson has rejected materialism as a means to truth....no he hasn't. Just like any other person in the world. You can't "reject" the fact that there are truths you accept due to its material evidence. That's the difference between a relevant discussion, so not on whether the earth is flat and a discussion on whether God exists. The simple difference between Peterson and Dawkins is where they set that border on certain issues. If you were to ask Peterson whether he believes in evolution, he could say....yes. So he doesn't reject materialism...there are 100s of questions relevant to religion he would reject due to its materialistic evidence proving the opposite. It's a absurdly simple question. He could say, no or yes and add a; but I think it is also relevant to ask about the morale of the story. Then Dawkins, like in many discussions, could say, I believe there is a meaning to the story.... Truth is truth, fact is fact. Pretty simply. *Also you commented on the Dawkins giving levels to different religions. I simply said it's not regarding truth as he considers the bible to be made up.
The fact historically Christian countries that are run in a secular way are better than certain Islamist governments in the middle east does not speak to the brilliance of Christianity. There was plenty of fundamentalism in Christianity's past. Also, it took the West a long time to recapture the spark of ancient Greece and Rome, and when it did it was in spite of the church, not because of it. I prefer JP when he talks about practical things, psychology, modern politics. This mumbo jumbo stuff is a bit out of control.
There are apparently Christians who don't believe those things literally happened, but they are hard to find. I'd say I'm one of them. I believe in the truth about reality contained in the myth, but not the actual scientific veracity of it. I think to believe any cultural myth is literally historically accurate is foolish from a scientific perspective.
Dawkins was asked what he meant by cultural christian before, and his answer was that Christianity produced the only societies he would want to live in. But because Peterson put him in a corner to concede his point about the good of Christianity and its culture, Dawkins did what he does best. Say whatever needs to be said to avoid conceding to his opponent.
@@skydriver5709 I highly doubt Dawkins would have any issue living in Japanese society. He would probably prefer it to most Western nations these days were it not for unrelated things like the language barrier.
@@Bob-v6h8t I don't care what you highly doubt. Dawkins already stated from his own mouth that he prefers to live within Christian culture. Can he live in other cultures? Sure. Could he live on the ISS? Sure. Could he live in Antarctica? Sure. Could he have lived in an ancient Norse culture? Sure. Sure. Sure. The point is he said something about Christian culture over other cultures, when he expressed it was his preferred culture. He only said "virtually nothing", to avoid conceding to Peterson's proposition.
Dawkinns suggested partway through this conversation that they switch to first name basis which they all seemed to do no one was being disrespectful here.
Man, Dr. Dawkins lacks abstract thinking! God forgive me, his behaviour wasn't the brightest.. Dr. Peterson was handing out golden nuggets about how Christianity was a black swan erasing all the cruelty and bringing mercy into the human structures, while Dr. Dawkins was repeating silly questions over and over again. What importance does the fact of Dr. Peterson believing in Virgin Birth has any value to the understanding of the deeper messages the Bible has?! Dr. Petersons answers were to the point and addressed the real issues and questions, viewers like me have. Without those two having posed the questions. God bless all the participants
Wasn't much of a debate. JP took up 90% of the conversation dancing around questions, while Dawkins basically kept asking things that amounted to, "Ok, we get that, but what's your point?" Only after an hour of rambling did JP finally get to something resembling a point, at which moment the video ended and told you to go pay to see the rest on Daily Wire.
It all goes back to the question, do you believe in God? And if you do, would he be capable of performing the virgin birth? If not, how was this God able to create everything that is, yet not have the ability to do so?
Yeah that is a good point. Well you do have to admit that due to scientific development some things had to be altered. If their fundamental belief is that God exists and it is omnipotent, then they simply have to continue building their system around it. Like saying, well God is so powerful he built the earth in a week with 2 people. Then the theory of evolution gained more validity. Now almost all people that are religious that I know can't deny it. But now they start claiming, well God created the first simple being on earth and let it develop itself into the humans we are today. We are almost at the point where the old and new testament are simply stories made to teach someone a lesson. I mean, look at the old testament....I literally don't know anyone that honestly believes the story of Noah and his arc of all animals two by two on a big boat...
If you actually listen to Jordan more often you will realise this isnt a bullshit answer at all. He is not trying to enforce his opinions, he`s trying to search for meaning and truth.
"Scientific truths" like temperature, pressure, and viscosity are abstract concepts that don't exist as tangible objects in the material world. They are simplifications and models scientists use to understand and predict natural phenomena-tools that have enabled us to achieve feats like travelling to the Moon. These concepts are not "real" in a physical sense but are invaluable for our survival and progress. Both scientific models and religious teachings are abstractions that, while not materially and historically real, play crucial roles in helping our society function effectively.
If a person sets another person on fire, the person on fire doesn't actually burn, the temperature doesn't actually rise, because all these are abstract concepts and not tangible.of if a person goes deep enough his lungs won't be crushed by the pressure of the ocean, because pressure is an abstract concept. Right?
Dr Peterson put on the spot whilst being questioned about the virgin birth. Regardless of his passion and defence of some mythical aspects, it defies scientific logic however much you swing your arms around and raise your voice. When the conversation extends to discussing dragons, it starts to breakdown into absurdity.
That’s kind of the point. If a guy claims to be God, but never does anything out of the ordinary then he’s just crazy. If he is God it would make sense that he’d prove it by breaking laws of nature/physics. I’ve never understood how this is a gotcha by atheists
@@westacheny4162 You shouldn't have to break the laws of physics to be a God, you should only be able to be an inspiration. High level wizardry is an illusion, being a muse for the betterment of yourself is reality.
@@westacheny4162 That's the problem, did he prove anything? the problem is that everything that he defended, and his to become religion defends, stands that laws of nature/physics, can be broken, and that's not what we see in the current reality, therefore, it's easy to conclude, that materialism is the only reality we can assure to be real, and consciousness isn't something that we can understand, yet.
His whole schtick is an appreciation for the allegorical value of the Biblical stories. Where he screws up is in his attempt to conflate this with actual Christian belief. As for the dragons, what he doesn't understand is that there is no confusion about dragons being abstract extrapolations of various predators. What's being asked of him is, "What's your point?" Why bring a biologist into a discussion about allegory and symbolism?
Mobile phones and aircraft defied scientific fact, up until a few decades ago.... Our understanding of the true nature of reality is only just beginning... We do not truely know the extent of what is or isn't possible... A little humility can go a long way...
JP, really surprised me I'm so use to him answering questions & not avoiding answering them. Was he being interviewed for a job as a politician ? If so he's got the job.
I am a small teacher from india and I am always trying to spread your message in my classes. This way I am spreading God's message indirectly. My students really like it and feel inspired.
@@marat6053 Again my questions remains the same. Why do you think it's not okay in schools? Like why are you afraid that something wrong will happen because of these?
@@nanuthedogvlog3885 As long as it's a private school, I don't care. But under no circumstances does the state have the right to indoctrinate children. Especially not with religion. The separation of church and state is an important achievement
Yes, Jordan's gradiloquence is ridiculous. I just love when he goes on and on with a long winded and verbose question, and then Dawkins responds with: "Yes" or "No". :)
Jordan isn't avoiding answering the question. The issue is just so much bigger than this question. The answer is: it doesn't matter, but yes, it probably did happen.
Exactly. Dawkins uses this question as a sticking point, in an attempt to derail the conversation, in his favour. Whether the events took place or not is irrelevant. What matters is, what effect does it have on a society, if that socieity chooses to believe in the teachings, as they are written, vs socities that choose to believe otherwise....
Whether or not the virgin birth was a reality will never change my belief in the value of the Golden Rule and my belief in the existence of a transcendent reality behind it, as well as being behind the miracle that a collection of self-replicating molecules made out of star dust could ever exist, let alone evolve to the point of possessing a conscious mind as well as a conscience.
While beliefs evolve, the values from cultural Christianity offer a steady moral compass for societies, even for those who do not practice Christianity as a faith. It’s not just about religion-it’s about maintaining an ethical and cultural legacy that has shaped many societies in lasting ways. For example: 1).Moral Foundation: Cultural Christianity often forms a basis for societal values, encouraging principles such as compassion, justice, and forgiveness. Even in secular societies, these values help define right and wrong, affecting laws and societal expectations. 2. Community and Social Stability: Cultural Christianity contributes to community-building by promoting values that emphasize family, charity, and social responsibility. Churches and Christian-inspired organizations historically offer services like education, health care, and aid for the disadvantaged. 3. Cultural Heritage and Identity: Christianity has shaped art, literature, philosophy, and music, forming a shared cultural heritage that unites diverse populations. This continuity provides individuals with a connection to their past, giving context to modern life and a sense of belonging. 4. Ethical Governance: Many political and legal systems in the West derive from Christian principles of human rights and dignity. Cultural Christianity supports ethical governance by emphasizing accountability and a duty to serve the common good.
You honestly believe pre Christian societies did not have any values? Christianity definitely does not emphasize family nearly as strongly as pre-Christian cultures did. Luke 14:26 specifically denies the very emphasis on familial legacy that was central to pre-Christian European worldview. Pre-Christian Europeans had a strong emphasis on hospitality and responsibility to kith and kin. They had education and apprenticeships and aid long before Christianity came along. They had art and music and philosophy and a stronger sense of connection to their culture and history than Christianity could ever offer, considering that it is a Middle Eastern faith that was introduced to Europe rather than anything stemming organically from the native cultures themselves. Not even trying to be rude here, but your claim is just historically ignorant.
@@Bob-v6h8t I never said they didn’t have values, what I said was Christian values became the moral code or the golden rule which it supersedes pre-Christian values. Here is why Unified Moral Framework is important: Christianity introduced a common ethical and moral framework based on shared beliefs, such as the Ten Commandments and teachings on virtues like compassion, charity, and humility. This gave Europeans a sense of shared values, helping to reduce conflicts based on differing tribal customs. Influence of Canon Law: The Church established canon law, which provided guidelines on marriage, property rights, and morality, influencing civil law across Europe. This consistency helped stabilize communities and create a sense of predictable order.
@@CF_Texas The idea that Europeans didn't have any unity of values prior to Christianity is nonsense. The only difference that Christianity made in terms of unity was political. Instead of people having their own disparate customs and traditions, they were either adapted to fit Christianity or were annihilated and replaced. There is an entire book on this, "The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity" by Dr. James Russell. He talks about how Christianity impacted Europe and also how Europe pushed back on early Christianity, effectively changing the way it became established, too.
I've been told by multiple people that Greece is beautiful. I've never been to Greece. But I know these people, I have a relationship with them. I have seen or heard other things they consider beautiful and so I trust their opinion. If someone were to ask me "Is Greece Beautiful? Yes or No." I would have to say "I dont know" because I've never been there. But I trust those who have been there so I "believe" (trust) that Greece is beautiful. "Is the virgin birth biological fact?" "Did the Resurrection factually happen?" "Did miracles happen?" I weren't there. I don't know. What I do know is that a very large portion of the Biblical Narrative has spoken to me in a positive way. And I know that by following the advice of the early church leaders about living self sacrificially with love and humility my life has moved in a positive direction despite(or because of) shattering difficulties. So, because they have proved themselves trustworthy in relation to how I live my life, I am going to trust them when they tell me "Mary was a Virgin" "Jesus rose from the Dead" "Jesus and His disciples and people throughout the last 2K years have healed peopled and preformed other Miracles" Is that ignorant or based on evidence? Are "Facts" even remotely relevant to the Truths of the Christian Narrative?
There is a great deal of value in the writings of Greek philosophers. People who study them, the Stoics, etc. often say that these teachings have had a positive impact. Does that mean that these same people should then, in turn, believe in the truth claims that Zeus is the King of the Gods and all the other stories involved in pre-Christian Greek religion? Silly take.
@@Bob-v6h8t I don't think it is a silly take. I agree that the Greek Philosophers have wisdom. But the Greek culture isn't stagnant. They took the wheat of the philosophers and when they encountered Christianity they burnt the chaff and grew as a culture. So if the philosophy of the Greeks has a positive influence on someone they might look to where that philosophy lead the culture and realize that the Greeks don't believe that Zeus is King of the Gods. It's Christ.
@@gabfr3194 Anyone who appreciates the Stoics or Epicureanism would disagree with you on it being considered the chaff compared to Christianity. If evolution of belief is your argument, then the trend toward atheism would suggest that people are gradually casting off of the chaff of Christianity to reveal the wheat of enlightenment. Countries like Greece have official state churches in which people are enrolled by default, so it is difficult to discern what the majority actually believe. I highly doubt, though, that Greece is genuinely majority Christian today.
Is that not the same disabling of critical thinking that leads people into cults? I don’t think you should insult your intelligence by deciding that, because a text has got you so far in life already, that you should then uncritically believe everything it says
you are confusing a myth with a dream. myths are fanciful/fictional stories about how you got somewhere, not where you wish to go in the future. Like it is a myth that humanity was spoken into existance by the flatulence of a colossal turtle and we now live on his back and he slowly walks about the universe. but a dream to go to mars and set up a colony.
Interesting take, it's more of an in-between answer, where it welcomes both dogmatists and unfeathered philosophers to consider the usefulness of not rushing to eliminate religion as it is the best that we as whole could muster until we naturally leave it behind.
@@jeolman1 Getting cramps because you didn't wait 30 minutes after eating to go swimming, is a myth. Myths are what you described, but they're also much more than that. As with most words, there's more than 1 definition, because words can have broader meanings than just 1.
@@jeolman1 you're confusing myth with urban legend. To qualify as mythic in psychology a story needs archetypal staying power or people will forget the details that are not relevant. I ask you please do not erode the meanings of words.
@@tryaluck an inability for them to except a legitimate answer and run a hustle for the ridiculousness of their delusional "point" does not reflect poorly on his lack of patience with the same shit different day bullshit.
As a doctor, i leave my faith at the door. It has nothing to do with my skill with treating a patient. When a surgeon operates on a patient, only his skills matter. His Religion ia not a factor.
I know this was a digression but I was shocked : “How do you make a case, on purely factual grounds, that women should be treated as equals?” Like it’s difficult? And how do you, on purely factual grounds, make the argument that men are greater than and have a right to oppress? Religion certainly makes a moral assumption for a specific hierarchy, not an argument, and purely factual grounds have historically been used to liberate women from oppression. I’m not sure how he could say that unless he hasn’t given it much thought or doesn’t give much value to women. He says it as if it’s a really quandary
Biologically, women aren’t as strong as Men (talk about testosterone and muscle mass amongst a few others). Stay with me now As to power & politics (who rules), the strongest (in survival, hunting, warfare) sits on the throne over others( look back on all biological history -man & animal). So if you remove morals - which were woven by the very fabrics of Christianity, women will be far from being treated equally with men because there are fundamental biological differences that give men the advantage of strength over women...it’s not a postmodern thing, it happens that our early ancestors were intelligent enough to deduce by primordial sense that the strongest anything rule the weakest anything. I’m not sure much can be done about that fundamental structure by which Society is set up ( it’s even interesting to know this structure has replicated itself across different cultures that have never met themselves before, just like the similarities in heroic and shamanic history across different cultures). I’m sure if you peel off Christianity, you cannot make a case for equality because, in these old stories, there are axioms that make a case for equality to begin with. Science is the modern language of mysticism, mythology is the oldest language of mysticism. Hope it helps.
@@henrikns nope, YOU don't know. We do. We followed the trail of evidence to where it leads. Just because you haven't doesn't give you the excuse to go around claiming we're all just as ignorant as you are. If you don't believe me, look up 'cold-case Christianity', a cold-case detective who didn't believe came to Christ after using his skills to try and dismantle the Bible. Now I'm not saying just because one guy concluded it's true, that Christianity is true. I'm just saying there's tons of evidence to conclude that to be the case, and if you want to see it laid out nicely you should look into it.
I am completely fine with cultural Christianity. If we as Christians of Faith do as we are called to do by God, He will open the avenues for cultural Christians to come to Christ.
I was an athiest for 31 years. Undergrad in the sciences and then nursing. I am 32 now. If you can't look at science, and not see there are discrepancies in science that need strict questioning, we will fail to see on the same plane. Conversely, if you can't look at any single religion and point out discrepancies in it that need strict questioning...we will not see on the same plane... The only thing that I can differentiate between now and the past 31 years...is a matter of perceiving the amount of evil in the world, and even in yourself, and understanding the difference between being an evil human or being a good human, and realizing the value of striving to be your best to do good for yourself and for others, to strive to be your best self. Doing so will bring you more fulfillment, sense of purpose, happiness, connectivity, and feelings of greater perspective, than any single scientific fact could ever explain... I used to always laugh at an old song intro beginning with a skit "ya know they say there's no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole?..." (Abacabb btw) *BS. Being in a foxhole...some God...That's just suggestive there is no God* Fastforward to 2024, I believe I heard Jordan Peterson say something along the lines of "*one individual* said that the modern man doesn't see religion because they haven't looked low enough" ... and I can tell you, that is the damn truth. Lastly and most importantly, what's changed is discovering that there are FAR greater fates than death. I was empty and sad for 31 years and never really acknowledged or knew why... Today, I am happy to be alive every single damn day, my stress is minimal despite having more chaos in my life than ever before, and have absolutely no anxiety. Or fear of dying. *before the athiest elites come out...the same as I did and would...know I didn't say a word about believing in God, Christianity, or even being religious. But it's a weird feeling, dudes. Hope you get to experience it.* And always remember... *Be. Excellent. To. Each. Other.*
@johnkruse5879 how'd I know 😂 I mean when religion was pushed on me as a child, it was never internalized or believed to be true/significant. At least for as long as I remember.
Mat 1:18 “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” Mat 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Mat 1:22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, (Isaiah 7:14) saying, Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” The Bible begins with the Spirit of God moving…then speaking…..light and there was light etc. Jesus was spoken into being…the Spirit of God moved upon Mary and it was so…..conception took place Joh 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
@@ElRoberto182 ill agree with you to a certain extent. A genuine christian just like everyone else is a wreched creature that wants to do right. And genuinely tries to do so. Sin is human nature. Thats why Christ came thats where he comes in.
The word is 'MIRACLE'. Why is it so difficult to say? The birth, the resurrection, the healings, the calming of the strom, the wine, the bread being multiplied, the sea parting etc, etc. The Bible is not a scientific text, yet all these things are true because God has the power to do it.
All Dawkins did was attempt to pin JP down and have him actually acknowledge whether he believes in the historicity of these events, these miracles if you prefer, or not. Christians do this without issue every day, but JP dodges. His whole schtick is conflating appreciation of the allegorical value of Biblical stories with actual Christian belief. Obviously, the two are not the same thing.
“Virtually nothing.” Dawkins is lost. From a position of Christian derived morality, he criticises Islam. Then claims Christianity deserves no credit. I don’t think he can have a real discussion.
You say christian derived morality but you do realize many enlightenment thinkers were influenced by islam right? Is that why modern christianity has the barbarism that it does?
One of the central disputes here is that Dawkins is whole scale dismissing the biblical story on all fronts because there are events that contradict currently scientific stories of how the material world works. Then he dismisses the whole text. When there is push back, he points out ways that some biblical stories appear to violate some modern ethical principles and then whole scale dismisses all moral thoughts that come from all biblical stories. Whether or not there was a resurrection or whether or not there is a virgin birth has no bearing on whether or not the moral teachings from the stories are true (or better than other teachings).
that is highly debatable. How do you know that there wouldnt have been another institution taking the role that christianity had in our culture and thus creating unis?
If God is the creator of all the earth and all the heavens; he created man and woman out of dust breathing life into them. How is it difficult to believe that a virgin birth is impossible? Disprove it based on the fact that we believe in a God that is the creator of all things.
According to JP, who cares if RD's answer to his question about whether some event occurred or not. If JP answers, "Yes, it did occur," "No, it didn't occur," or "I don't know if it occurred," it doesn't change the validity of the deep mythological enterprise from the Bible's stories. It's not what something is but what it means. Meaning is everything.
Have either Peterson or Dawkins read CS Lewis's Miracles? It seems that these two agree that miracles and rationality are mutually exclusive; a thesis I have serious qualms with. It just so happens that Dawkins believes that all of epistemology works entirely on the level of fact-value basis whereas Peterson sees it as one level of analysis to be used at one level of investigation. I agree with your multi-level epistemology Dr. Peterson, but I think you need not put rationality against miracles. The incarnation has been investigated rationally and deeply by the early church fathers who were great defenders of reason (i.e. Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus). Why this false dichotomy?
JP deliberately conflates the mere appreciation of the allegorical value found in the Biblical stories with actual Christian belief. It's a grift. He knows his audience.
@@Bob-v6h8t Not quite. He's very clear that he believes Christian fundamentalists lose the philosophical battle against the new atheists on the scientific ground. He believes it's a weak foundation and believes that the allegorical story is a better foundation than claiming the biblical story to be historically true. He also believes the allegorical value of the Bible to be more widely applicable than it's history. He subsumes the Biblical narrative to Jungian archetypes. My point is that I don't see the need for this dichotomy. If you can make the case that something or someone like God created the cosmos, then I see no rational problem with any acts of "recreation" He would like to stick in to his creation at various points. In the Bible, when Jesus turns the water into the wine, he has that ability and right as creator, it breaks no natural laws as the water, now transformed into wine, acts just as wine does. God introduces a new thing into his created order and lets the laws of nature incorporate the new phenomena.
@@joelsmith957 Dawkins is more concerned with the implications of people actually believing the religion's claims to be matter-of-fact truth. People didn't burn "heretics" at the stake over allegorical value. Those Dominionist and Fellowship type special interest groups aren't attempting to influence public policy based upon there simply being some meaningful value in Biblical stories. If JP just said, "No, I don't actually believe it to be historically, matter-of-fact true, but there is value in the stories," no one would be drilling him about it. It's the fact that he evades and claims to be Christian and claims that even atheists are actually Christian and all that nonsense that gets people trying to pin him down and be direct about it. He's not alone, either. At this point, there is a pseudo Christian movement developing, and people are right to call BS on it.
The answer to "was Jesus born of a virgin" is YES. The blood that still appears to this day on the rock jesus was laid on after being taken down of cross in Jerusalem, shows only 24 chromosomes: 23 maternal chromosomes, and one Y chromosome. That's scientific proof of the miraculous conception.
Science is full of examples of geniuses who were in front of their time and whose ideas were rediculed by mainstream scientist and that were much later proved to be correct.
well thats not quite how it works. If your a Homosapien, (and you are) then your a subspecies of the great apes, they also include Chimpanzee, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Orangutangs, and then slightly further distant relation is the Gibon.
@@vashmatrix5769 That was delusional. Evolution is corroborated and proven as fact by DNA, comparative anatomy, cladograms, geology (oil prospecting uses index fossils), observed in nature. It is a fact that is accepted by Dawkins, Peterson and O'Connor in the very video you watched. It is only denied by religious zealots because it is a threat to the faith and therefore living forever. The Catholic Church accept evolution as fact as well as many other religious people of authority. But if you want to live in the stone age and deny evolution, be happy to be in the company of the likes of people who protest the funerals of killed US soldiers or the Taliban. Please ensure to avoid modern medicine, matter how your health is, as much of medicine uses evolution science to make life saving products.
Im not changing the topic, im leaping outside the topic! I'm going to use that, the next time i have to change the topic of conversation in my favor! 😂
@@armandoerazo2482
The point of Dawkins and alike is, that religions are made up fairy tales with no true value and evil!! JP argued displayed how nothing of that is true. Apparently you didn’t get that.
Too many people like yourself don't understand why it's important to do this. This is what we do in psychotherapy and also coaching. He's adopting the outside looking in perspective and is integral to the practice. All this conclusions from people who don't know.
@@armandoerazo2482Jordan does this to cultivate thoughts for discussion. Dawkins just wasn’t interested in the discussion and he had his babysitter/mediator there to protect his cowardly stance of hiding behind fact vs. fiction. I applaud Jordan for his attempt, but maybe Dawkins is better off not taking interviews.
Virgin birth... LITERAL or METAPHOR? It's as straight forward and simple as a question can be. Peterson HAS to change the subject. If Peterson answers "Metaphor" then IS he a True Christian? or just a "Cultural Christian?"
@@studlystud The analogy would be Pier's Morgan's "Do you condemn..."
Dawkins: Do you believe Santa Claus comes down children's chimneys at Christmas?
Peterson: Well that's a complicated question.....here's a word salad that avoids the question entirely.
That's basically 90% of the debate.
Reddit is down the hallway, sir
JP uses way too many words to convey his ideas. Most of the time we do finally understand what he is driving at, but he should just "cut to the chase" more often.
@@eulipion From a listener's perspective he does, but it's his way of thinking through his own understanding and there's really no way around it. It makes sense if you follow his linear thinking but it requires more time and mental strain.
Listen more to his words
@@dominickjuarez5461 I've listened very closely and I'm astounded at his inability to answer simple questions...well...no...I take that back, it's not that he doesn't have the ability, it's that he's afraid of losing his audience if he's straight forward about what he actually believes and doesn't believe.
I can't prove the boy who cried wolf ever existed, that doesn't mean anyone is a fool for believing in the morale of the story.
Dawkins and everyone who watched this interview can appreciate the allegorical value of stories, religious and non-religious alike. The issue is that JP here doesn't really make any valid point as to why a biologist should be brought into a conversation about mythology. Toward the very end, he comes close to making some semblance of a connection, but then the video hits you with a Daily Wire paywall.
Yes but nobody goes around saying the boy who cried wolf is God's word or that the author had some divine knowledge, or that you're "lost" or going to hell if you don't think it literally happened. Nor does anyone want to kill you if you disagree about the meaning. That's the difference. If we could treat religious texts in the same way we treat the boy who cried wolf, that'd be great.
Wow, good comment
@@chrisdoel2778 your point has nothing to do with the discussion. The behavior of individuals does not refute the value of the wisdom.
@@Bob-v6h8t biology is a scientific study and the Bible is not a scientific document. It's not important whether or not a virgin was able to undergo immaculate conception. The important part is what is the meaning in her conceiving this way?
The biology point is akin to arguing that wolves would never behave the way they do in the "the boy who cried wolf" and thus the entire story is meaninglessness.
I used to admire people good with words like Russell Brand and Peterson, but now they seem too meandering. Talking is an art that I still like, but I think being concise is an important element.
every philosopher's dilemma
Both of them talk that way to make what they're saying sound smarter than it actually is. Most of the time, including in this video, if Peterson was "straight to the point", everyone would see his point was actually not that great.
@@Djanck000 I'm sure in many cases people are pretentious when talking, but I'm one of the people that really likes poetry, literature, and use of words. It's like an art form to me, similar to painting or drawing.
@@GreatestOneEver Sure, but meaning is important. This is something that even Peterson says all the time.
@@Djanck000 You should watch J. Peterson talk to Richard Dawkins on Peterson's podcast, it was embarrassing honestly. The first talk he did with Dawkins, Peterson rambled on and on. It was like a monologue and Dawkins was invited to hear Peterson ramble.
“Do you believe Jesus was born a virgin?”
Well….I certainly hope so….
lol
He said “born OF a virgin” which is a valid question.
A Serbian Film intensifies.
So Peterson reads the Bible from a metaphorical perspective and not a literal one. He sees value in the metaphors and believes that these metaphors enlighten humanity with truths that are of a spiritual nature and in this sense sees the Bible as a divinely inspired guide. Dawkins sees the text as literally untrue on a scientific factual basis so cannot view it as a spiritual or divine text. The problem with reading the text as metaphorical is that it doesn't prove divinity as you can conceivably open any book and find metaphorical meaning if you're looking for it. The fact that the Bible is almost completely metaphor doesn't make it any more divine than any other book. I can see value in reading it as an interesting study in metaphor and even applying some inspiration that you derive from it but this is quite different than believing it's the word of God and every letter is divinely inspired and that to deviate from it is a spiritual death sentence, as so many Christians believe.
How can I spray you some money for this comment? Spot on!👍
If a society chooses to believe the words of the bible, and act them out, and doing so consistently leads to better outcomes than socities who choose to do otherwise, this is, in itsself, evidence of a form of truth. this is what those who are locked into the so called scientific mind set cannot seem to understand. there are more ways to quantify truth than simply measuring or weighing...
the lens of scientific sight viewing every little thing around the world is recently invented method not long ago. people mistake constantly that our feelings are same with those lived in antiquity but it’s not. Reasons in thoughts and reasons in feelings have mutual dependency but modern human lack this reasons in feelings. Primal people just had different language describing the world than us. our modern language simply categorise the terms in hyper details it might be just gotten merely many names but if you rewind all the way back to the origin of every evolutions including language,civilisation,actions,feelings,thoughts etc you inevitably encounter What is so called ‘God’ or ‘Spirit’ or ‘Demon’. Biological dragon is not real but the Spirit of Dragon is real and the concept of it, it’s features can anytime appear in anywhere whether that’d be in your household or largely as a nation.
This comment deserves to be read twice. At least.
@@rosstituteukThat's a weird take. It might lend itself to say that the philosophy is a good one, but has no bearing on the truth of the supernatural claims.
JP is a smart man. He knows that every discussion regarding the bible played on the playing field of objective truth is a lost battle for him. He tries hard to change the playing field to some sort of metaphorical moral truth, knowing that this basically disarms Richard. The problem that arises is that “truth” does not exist on the playing ground that JP tries to establish. That’s why till this day religious people are still arguing about the meaning of a religious text. Everyone can be right or wrong in this context, it depends on what you DECIDE to believe. JP in that sense is like a chess player who knows he cannot win, and plays the game from the start in such a way that at least he at least won’t lose. Such a discussion is basically useless.
"it depends on what you DECIDE to believe" - it seems this is what the Christian text itself demands. Faith, and the foolishness of the preachiing of the gospel, is the only path given in them. Signs and wisdom (as means of knowing God) are rejected in them. So in a way, JP struggles against God himself. He'd do better playing the skeptics skeptic, showing how the claims of atheism are fundamentally flawed in their unprovable, underlying assumptions. I saw him do this in a debate with Dillahunty and he rocked.
@@Sojourning-e1n what are you talking about??? You know the first miracle Jesus performs in the New Testament is turning water into wine? Well normally that'd be a rather pointless miracle, but John (the author) also gives the reason for why Jesus turning water into wine was so important: John 2:11 "What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him." it even says ' the first of the _signs_', meaning he performed multiple.
Today, signs are given to people who then become Christian on that basis all the time, all over the world. I myself asked God to prove he exists to me if he wanted me to believe in him and, after I prayed with all my heart, God gave me 3 signs where he showed himself as Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit. Signs are not rejected at all in Scripture as a way to come to faith, and Jesus himself was constantly performing miracles as signs on the basis of which people should believe.
@@cookedporkchop400 I'm glad you are saved! And that the Lord manifested himself to you! I believe you. But I'm not speaking of the miracles of Christ's day, nor of those that occur even today in this age. Please reread my point again with emphasis on the parenthetical "as a means of knowing God". Then ask yourself how you knew to cry out to him, and how you knew who you were crying out to, and how you recognized him when he answered, if it were not because you first heard the Gospel.
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishnes
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Co 1:21-25
@@Sojourning-e1n Ah, I see. Misunderstood you. Your phrasing is a little too heavy to digest as a mere comment on a UA-cam video.
I would say that you are right in my case. But there are plenty of documented cases of people from lands where they'd never heard the gospel message before - for example many Muslims - who come to Christ after asking Allah to reveal himself to them, and seeing Jesus. After they see Jesus, they know to seek the rest of Christianity by looking into him - or sometimes just ignore it in spite of that. So I don't think it has to be the Gospel message that comes first on the path towards Christianity.
Two polar opposite minds pursuing truth in totally the opposite directions. Literal vs Metaphoric. The idea of getting these two positions together in the same room for a conversation was a great one - but unfortunately it didn't work. Neither can understand why the other can't see the profoundness that they believe comes from their disciplines.
They actually start making extreme progress within the last 15-30 minutes of the conversation.
That’s really not accurate. Jordan is definitely capable of understanding and appreciating where Richard is coming from. It’s more that Richard can’t get to where Jordan is.
@@JonnyCook no he can. richard asked a question about literal truth, and jordan couldnt answer it, he resorted to metaphors even though thats clearly not the kind of truth richard was talking about
alex even tried to bridge the gap with jordan by saying yes we know your talking about metaphorical interpretations but did these events literally happen. he is just unable to engage with that.
It's more of a battle of one dogma versus not fully developed dogma, meaning Dawkins says less about what one ought to do or believe, whilst Peterson seems to want to direct people to do well for themselves first in order not to crumble in philosophical pursuit. That's why I sort of find their arguments only to be taken as a way to develop better philosophy out of
I can't believe that Jordan Peterson put this on his own channel. Wow, he can answer a million other questions in an instant -- no hesitation -- but the virgin birth he can't say. Isn't it utterly transparent to everyone that he is AVOIDING answering? It's embarrassing to watch him.
I get it. There are countless questions my children ask me about God and the Bible that sadly I cannot answer, no one can. Even someone as well read as Peterson can’t be expected to have all the answers. I actually appreciate when he says he can’t answer rather than talk out his behind. Even the ones who believe in evolution don’t have ALL the answers. We are human and will not know until we pass. As for me I’m going to stick with what my faith and heart tells me that’s taken years of life experience to believe.
Also, I feel some of these questions are meant to be “gotcha” moments, that the questioner doesn’t want an answer but only to trip up the other and shut down conversation.
@@BFNLEOHow is it a gotcha? All you have to say is “I believe the story is true as presented” or “this particular bit is probably made up”. Neither one is taking a firm stance, and i refuse to believe neither you or Peterson has an opinion on the actual question.
I can firmly say i dont believe the virgin birth or most of the other mystical claims in the bible; answering dawkins question, and then go on to say that societies are organized around ideas not facts, so regardless of the historical facts that we cant ever truly know we can find philosophical truths in the stories. It didnt matter to romans if romulus and remus were actually raised by a she wolf.
It’s too bad that Peterson is not a Christian. He’s stuck trying to give a scientifically acceptable answer. I’m not sure there is one. But I do believe that, if God exists, then miracles are possible. They are probably even necessary.
The man clearly said “I don’t know” multiple times. I don’t get why you and those two are not satisfied with that. If he dosen’t know, he dosen’t know.
@@Buljaadin I have the highest respect for Dr. Peterson. My hope is that he will accept the benefits of salvation. You see, even though I now only know in part, I can say that yes, I believe Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, died, and on the third day rose from the dead.
There is no cultural Christianity without genuine Christianity.
then there is no cultural islamism without genuine islam, and so on and so forth
there absolutely is. idk what you mean.
@@Vikingarmrestling cultural islam is bad and should go away.
@@anamerican5585 it dies without any roots. just read any post modernists if you think our values hold without god.
@@gtothereal to believe that humans have morals is more ridiculos than to believe there is a god tbh
Dawkins previous explained in another interview what he meant by "Cultural Christian", and it was that he acknowledged Christian societies produced the only societies he would ever want to live in, given the choice.
That's not "Virtually nothing". That's a full admittance that Christian culture obvious got many things right that other cultures have not, but he's not going to say that to you, because that would be conceding to your point. Dawkins can't allow that. Dawkins is a debater. He's not even going to agree with himself if he's put in a corner. He'll always make an argument against the current "thing" as to not give any 'win' to his opponent, consistency be damned.
Well this is one of the many problems with Dawkins - he claims Christianity has absolutely no value except that it literally was one of the primary influences on all of modern society, medicine, intellect, science, government, education, etc. Without Christianity we'd we wandering aimlessly in the desert. It's easy to assume otherwise, but that's not very scientific.
The missing part from your analysis is that all of us are literally and figuratively "cultural christians", why? Because we are pushed, trained, conditioned and punished if we don't follow the societal rules imprinted by the memes and cultural inheritance in our society. The root difference is that Christian culture is way less severe in comparison with Islam, but still have a massive influence nonetheless by the use of mythical archetypes and stories that were and still badly translated, that's the reason why there's so many ramifications of the same Christian principles that became also religions. Christianity so to speak an make it simple it's the amalgamation of societal rules and dynamics of different cultures during history that led to what it is now, the best comparison would be manicheism, because back in the day, christians and catholics would butcher and kill people out of their interests and say it was God's providence and will.
@@bioshin morover we should say, that despite christianity we progressed. When it had a full sway on our culture we had religious wars between christian factions and influenced not just the day to day lives of the common people but the highest levels of dimplomacy.
@@lakermangmx As every other not western religion had to at some point in history even with the ones who disappeared from the memories of humanity, and that's what conservative religious modern philosophers don't understand. There's no common ground between Dawkins and Peterson and that's because the root and core issue is human nature and stupidity, you can't blindly make one of the most proficient minds in the field of science low his intelligence and consciousness down to an average citizen with the capability of being gullible enough to still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy because they are beyond the realm of symbolism, something needed for the below average in intelligence mass of people around the world. If he wasn't intelligent enough how Dawkins would be what he's now, and what makes you think that someone with his level of intelligence could fall trap of stories like being born out of virgin woman? I once heard someone's says that religion, at least Christianity, was the religion of the noble, being the noble the humble and poor by concept, because they needed something to believe in and justify their poor luck, while the wealthy and intelligent didn't need any type of beliefs, because they were beyond the boundaries of ignorance, since they were allowed to do everything, because they knew how to do it with little to no consequences...
@@lakermangmx @lakermangmx As every other not western religion had to at some point in history even with the ones who disappeared from the memories of humanity, and that's what conservative religious modern philosophers don't understand. There's no common ground between Dawkins and Peterson and that's because the root and core issue is human nature and stupidity, you can't blindly make one of the most proficient minds in the field of science low his intelligence and consciousness down to an average citizen with the capability of being gullible enough to still believe in the tooth fairy because they are beyond the realm of symbolism, something needed for the below average in intelligence mass of people around the world. If he wasn't intelligent enough how Dawkins would be what he's now? I once heard someone's says that religion, at least Christianity, was the religion of the noble, being the noble the humble and poor by concept, because they needed something to believe in and justify their poor luck, while the wealthy and intelligent didn't need any type of beliefs, because they were beyond the boundaries of ignorance, since they were allowed to do everything, because they knew how to do it with little to no consequences...
Dawkins makes 10x more sense in 10x less words.
Also more elegant and composed. Peterson screams like an angry 7-year-old boy.
Great content as always! I admire both of these men ! They have changed my life for the better with their books and knowledge. They are great conversationalist. This is what America needs.
Jordan is a psychologist which is possibly a reason for his overthinking and long monologues. Dawkins is a biologist I think and sees the world in a purely physical way. A possible reason why he, in contrast to Dr Peterson, is more of a minimalist thinker who gives short and direct answers and is less likely to stray off subject.
I have great respect for both men but JBP's more sympathetic approach to Christianity and his willingness to mix science and faith have me leaning more favourably towards him as a Christian myself
I feel like JP fears to accept the miracles in the Bible as he is so close yet so far to accept the Christian faith as it would basically requite utmost humility for him to just simply say ‘I don’t know everything about God’
I have never seen JP so stumped and unwilling to answer a question.
👎
I don't think he was stumped per say. They are viewing the Bible totally different. To Jordan it doesn't matter if Jesus was born of a virgin. The morals still hold. Dawkins on the other hand, if you say Jesus was not born of a virgin will throw out the entire Bible. If he says Jesus was born of a virgin, he will still disregard the entire Bible and call him a fool, then ask for proof.
Agree
@@Bob-v6h8t I have and I don't disagree with you to a certain point, but he usually isn't asked a blunt question that he won't (not can't) answer.
@@theterribleyoutuber7376 Meh. JP deliberately conflates appreciation of Biblical stories with actual belief in them. It's his whole schtick. Dawkins is simply saying that he doesn't believe that appreciating Christian ideas is the same as being Christian.
dawkins is almost impossibly closeminded for an accomplished scientist. you can be an athiest and notice that christianity founded our current morals.
edit: (Founded most of) because reddit atheist are crying at me. im an athiest and not making a value claim. christianities influence on western morals is widespread and very well documented. stop blabbing your ignorance to me.
he judges islam but if he doesnt have an argument for his morals based on anything but his feelings. then he isnt really thinking any deeper than those he judges.
at least sam harris actually tries to justify a secular moral framework.
Nonsense. Moral values are opinions. "(Insert Behavior) is good" and "(Insert Behavior) is bad" are subjective opinions by default. There is no getting around the fact of how those terms work. Everyone in the world can agree on an opinion, but it's still an opinion and therefore subjective. To claim otherwise would be an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. As for our laws, self-interest is what founded the laws of our society. Go all the way back to primitive eras, and it's basically, "Hey, that big caveman keeps bonking us on the head and taking our stuff. Let's get together and punish him and then make it a rule that anyone who tries doing what he did will meet the same consequence." It boils down to self-interested people deciding that preventing certain things from happening to them is more valuable than having the freedom to do those things to others.
@@Bob-v6h8tthere are literally morals and opinions that keep societies and humanity alive. Without them we will literally delete ourselves so your argument is not that good
@@Bob-v6h8t while you answer is both simplistic, shallow, and only partially historically accurate. its still light years ahead of what dawkins said in this video. he chuckles that being above islams barbarism is barely a feat while rarely ever justifying his own moral framework. his morals seem to be plucked straight from those around him which would make him no better than the muslims tossing people off roofs. dawkins refusal to even engage with abstract concepts is not anything to admire.
Shame we never see confrontation between mr Peterson and Christopher Hitchens, that would be super interesting. Great conversation, thank you for it!.
They can't agree that both religion and science, are saving and destroying the world at the same time because that would mean science is subordinate if the good wins, and Dawkins can't have that. I got that from his last sentence.
Wait, are you saying religion is saving the world? 😅
I don’t believe God can be understood scientifically or intellectually simple because He is outside of the concept of time, matter and space. If we can prove his existence, the very idea of “faith and belief without seeing” (John 20:28-29) would seize to exist.
Lol.
As a devout christian, well done dawkins. Peterson needs to respect boundaries and not call himself a Christian if he doesnt believe in the literal realities of Christian orthodoxy, christs divinity, virgin birth etc etc...
Exactly
Peterson clearly believes in a spiritual truth. His overvaluing of mythological truths in the Christian doctrine implies that he believes that the canonical history of Christianity, in their biblical stories, represents some kind of divine dialogue by the human race with itself. The dialogue in question will, in his mind, uncover a divine or universal truth to mankind.
Which is fine, since he can be Christian, as much as he can believe in anything else he wants, but his eagerness to jump through hoops to avoid being labeled religious is a bit ridiculous to me. I have an idea as to why he is like this but I written enough of my opinion.
I think that peterson doesnt actually believe the history, he just likes the stories as being a cornerstone of modern western civilization. Thats why he typically dodges fact based questions.
Well, when you put like 45 years of study into the complexities of psychology and myth, you're bound to think 10 answers to every question on these subjects. Joseph Campbell would have done the same thing.
He sure sounded like a Christian when he went on Pints with Aquinas. On that podcast he called atheism an “illegal chess move” and did a deep analysis on biblical themes
Imagine Moderating such Great Thinkers, Kudos to Mr. Alex O'Connor
Christ is love not academic arrogance
Christ can’t survive an honest intellectual discussion.
@@charlie_zzz6456You can't conceptualize The Divine using a reductionist approach.
Alex O'Connor keeps them both very good on topic! Very impressed by that. He keeps the conversation within the boundries.
I like JP, but religion does weird things to people. Dawkins all the way here
Dawkins is in a box and he can’t see outside it. No room for beyond ! No room for miracles- that life itself is a miracle!
Iain McGilchrist needs to be included in this conversation. He would have a lot of useful things to say.
Mr Peterson sounds more and more like a politician the further this debate goes on
Definitely keeps moving the conversation from historical fact to philosophical truth
@@Typexviiib
What do you mean philosophical truth?
He says the ideas/ memes/ Jungian Archetyps express themself in metaphor and have a biological foundation, which is why they emerge cross culturally!! What’s so hard to grasp and understand?!?
Biologists or atheists always dismissed religion as fairy tails with no link to science or truth, yet JP argued exactly against that assumption that religions have no truth value and contain no wisdom or morals worth exploring.
What’s so hard to grasp to so many critiques of JP is a mystery to me !!! He didn’t form arguments for the existence of the christian GOD. He refuted the atheist claims about what religions are and their use or their truth value !!!
@LeeLe ese-bi5vt
You sound like somebody not understanding JP and trying to frame him into a category you understand.
@@thenicolascage4355 Tragic. He gets a yes, no or I don't know answer and desperately rambles on about morality in history. You can clearly see even Dawkins doesn't take him serious anymore as does the other boy. He just can't handle him being ignorant and he lets his ego desperately preach about random terms and rambles about and hopes Dawkins nods a few times, and he can sit back and relax and pretend he answered a question.
Yeah cause he’s full of shit
Cultural Christianity is having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Alex O'Connor doing a great job here!
Thanks Dr Peterson, I was waiting for this far too long!
This might look like a stretch, but they aren’t entirely at odds here. Dawkins views the christian aspect of his upbringing as a foundational part of his cultural identity, acknowledging-even if somewhat taking for granted-that it's impossible to fully dissociate the values he considers 'elevated' from their christian roots. He often tries to frame this in purely logical terms, almost to the point of overlooking its deeper implications. Meanwhile, when Peterson speaks about how stories, myths, and metaphors shape our worldview, he's not exactly contradicting Dawkins. Instead, he seems to focus more in the language of the argument than in the core idea. Overall, it's not totally opposite views.
Yeah, Peterson pipes up a lot as if he disagrees but a couple sentences later and it’s up in smoke. He’s like a dancing boxer who only throws fakes. It’s not clear to me if he even knows if he disagrees with Dawkins or not.
That's exactly his point. If Dawkins would only accept it.
@@mojo9291 “if he only accepted what JP says, they wouldn’t disagree” LOL argument 101. By the time JP expressed something about Christian values and hierarchy Dawkins very very clearly explained what he agreed with and what he didn’t in two short sentences. What’s entirely unclear from this conversation is how JP has decided to reconcile belief with facts. I’m not convinced he has decided. And as far as I can tell that’s Dawkins’ primary query, even if it’s not JPs.
This is pure gold comedy, Dawkins being completely misunderstood and Peterson completely decomposing for no reasons over DRAGONS 😂
Please continue
Rare recent Dawkins W here.
@@Djanck000 *Common
@@0doublezero0 If we consider "lifetime" achievements? Sure. But in recent years he has been on a strict "L" diet.
Watching just a few minutes of this debate made me feel so uncomfortable towards Peterson.
Dawkins destroyed his credibility with very easy and simple questions.
Peterson is a scam selling books to weak people searching for a cult.
Precisely.
Why are you guys hating on JP? I think he gave responsible answers to really complicated theological and historical questions as a psychologist and political scientist. It is true that JP will surely go on a search after that exchange with Dawkins, but it is not about WINNING an argument here, but growing intellectually. Y'all people are kinda just eager for entertainment and a battle arena. Also the "moderator" seemed to be on the side of Dawkins, which should never be a case in a moderation
"The truth of science gets us to the moon."
Science is a process. Science is not a truth claim in itself. That's where Dawkins' argument starts to collapse
math has truth. science only flirts with the truth.
He's talking about that process when he says that. Scientific research and the application of the results of that research are what get us to the moon. He and most everyone out there realize what science refers to.
After he made these comments I couldn't even take him serious anymore
Lol what?
@@Bob-v6h8t he made a claim. it was false.
Interesting conversation!
JP so badly wants to understand God with the rational mind. It's genuine.
But you cannot understand God with the rational mind. You can talk around him and close as a silhouette. But it comes that the intellect, becomes the primary boundary to God, once you reach JP levels of brilliant study.
A bit paradoxical. Where mentation meets the boundary of God, then mention needs to be dropped. And the practice of silencing the mind needs to begin, meditation.
You cannot know God intellectually.
How do you know that?
@@Moltenstardeaththe biblical texts that are the whole identity of God says it's impossible for a mortal creature which is man to comprehend that which spirit which is God
True. Because there IS no God.
@@ENOCKNALUMOSO those texts also teach that we all have the divine in us, which gives us the ability, possibly, to understand.
You can know an anthropomorphic being intellectually. Just look at all the commands the desert warlord “Yawheh” gives
This entire conversation is reminding me of this quote (was it Einstein who said it? ):
"The rational mind is a faithful servant and the intuitive mind is a precious gift.
We live in a society that honors the servant but has forgotten the gift".
It was Iain McGilchrist who reminded me of this quote.
I believe the reason it's coming to mind is that it "appears" that these two perspectives are possibly left hemisphere vs right hemisphere views.....both of which have immense value...and both of which are "true" in their own ways. They are each "the view" of different aspects of reality. There is no need to argue over which view is "right" because they both are. If we can agree on that, the only remaining question is "when" to use one approach over the other. Personally I use a combination of these two approaches (and I think every human with a normally functioning brain does...even if they're not aware if it).
What is it in us?....is it conditioning?....that keeps us feeling that only one of these approaches can be "right".
Once we recognize the value of each we can consciously "choose" either...or a combination of both... based on their usefulness for whatever we're attempting to understand or accomplish.
I often, "consciously" flip back and forth multiple times between these two approaches before deciding which, if not a customized combination of both, is the most useful in producing an overall good outcome. Wouldn't want to live any other way!
I really feel the only problem here comes from turning this into a zero sum question.
Dawkins is, no doubt, a left hemisphere genius... and his assertion that scientific fact is in a "whole other league" fits right in with McGilchrist's assertion that the left hemisphere doesn't know what it doesn't know...has a very high opinion of itself...and can't recognize the value of it's opposite hemisphere (which is a feature the right hemisphere doesn't share). This is not an insult to Dawkins...It's just the downside of the left hemisphere in general. No one, including me, would argue his intelligence...and thank goodness for people with this type and level of intelligence.
I really feel the only problem here comes from turning this into a competition. Dawkins "wins in his arena hands down, but seems not to have the intuitive recognition of the power and necessity of myth to inform us in the matters of "the other half..."the invisible half" of existence...in which science fails to be of use in explaining.
It may just be a matter of "everyone has their strengths"...(as each hemisphere has it's strengths) and strengths usually tend to be accompanied by weaknesses in some other arena.
The paradox of Peterson’s instrumentalism in religion is that while it leads one to adhere to religious practices, it lacks the intrinsic commitment of genuine faith, which is essential for personal change. Instrumentalism treats beliefs and practices as means to an end. This is ontologically incompatible with faith, which calls for an intrinsic commitment.
In essence, while Peterson’s approach may inspire a form of religious praxis, it cannot access the deeper, transformative potential of faith. True faith requires a surrender to meaning beyond utility of “metaphor” or some narrative, something that instrumentalism, by its nature, resists, creating a tension between practice and genuine transformation. Thus, while instrumentalism might preserve religious observance, it ultimately lacks the ontological depth to facilitate the profound change that faith brings.
But isn’t he a raised foot in the faith direction compared to Dawkins?
I’m an Omnist, and for the most part agreed with Peterson on a lot of his points here. But I will admit that I can’t deny Dawkins ending remark here.
I’m about to watch the whole debate, but the question that what factual scientific truth has done for humanity is off the charts in comparison to metaphorical and value predicated truth.
Because of science, we can literally raise people from the dead using electricity. Something only imagined of in fiction admittedly. Because of science we know how our own bodies might be wanting to kill us, and form a defence against it. We’ve cured so many diseases. I think Dawkins just fell short as he was talking about flying cars and going to other planets; like that’s something to write home about.
At first glance, I disagree. The latter comes before the former, and engenders it. So which has done more for humanity, really?
JOHN 9 : 40-41
Some Pharisees who were standing nearby heard Him and asked,
“Are you saying we’re blind?”
“If you were blind, you wouldn’t be guilty,” Jesus replied.
“But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.”
NLT
Thanks. Will remember this.
Where is the full episode?
They are arguing differently points is the problem, religion is not science, and science is not religion
They both have a purpose and there isn't much overlap
Underrated comment
Agree, I haven't listened to the entire episode but I think this was enough for me to realise that you need evidence to prove or disprove something. There is also a 3rd option which is "we don't know" because no evidence or not enough evidence.
It is a story so probably some truth in there but how much is anyone's guess
Giordano Bruno would disagree!
Brave of Peterson to have a discussion with Dawkins. I like both these scientists(so to speak).
Dawkins relishing in sewing seeds of doubt and I am somewhat disappointed in Peterson. I'm not disappointed in him for admitting he doesn't know. I'm disappointed that he could let one question bring down the conversation. He so early on allows himself to get dismantled by a predictable trap. The answer to this question for a Christian is different than the answer is for a non believer scholar. The answer for a Christian is that faith is a requirement from God in order to enter His kingdom. If you believe based on faith that Jesus is his Son then you also know that he was surrounded by miracles that should have alerted those around him that he was indeed the Son of God. The virgin birth is another miracle in this context, in my opinion.
He got caught up on nothing. Of course, no one can "prove" the virgin birth any more than we can scientifically prove God. That doesn't mean he doesn't exist. We can't prove there are parallel universes - but that doesn't mean they don't exist. JBP needed to put that back on Dawkins. He claims to base everything on science but science can't explain the existence of the universe, DNA or people. So I guess that means the rest of science can't be trusted?!
he refused to be dismantled by the predictable trap by refusing to answer a question that is obtuse in its origin. those engaged in this discussion, in good faith, understand that the deeper point does not revolve around whether certain events took place or not, but rather, what effect it has on a culture / society, should that society choose to believe the words, as they are written...
@@rosstituteuk I can see where you are coming from. I do think he is sort of opting out by his answers. It just really appears as if Dawkins isn't even engaged in certain parts of the conversation. He is drunk on factuality. Kind of feels like they are missing each other but no surprises there I guess.
@@momscience399 agreed!
"The answer for a Christian is that faith is a requirement from God in order to enter His kingdom"
Faith is there however just the denial of limitations of reality. Hence that is why hearsay about miracles became so sturdy. This already starts with the denial that thinking is a process: From 1 chain to the next chain or the denial that it needs a thinking organ to be processed. Like god shall be timeless - not having even a second to chain thoughts together or any brain to process the thinking activity. That is why a god is a slogan to caste away the attention focus from the too obvious denial about certain truthes.
Like the denial of the own limited lifespan (denial of the own mortality) or something profound as the denial of the order of historical events.
A mundane example is that certain activities such as the _to create_ or _to design_ activity shall be older in time than other activities. In the actual history certain activities like absorbing nutrients performed by single cells in ancient oceans is actually hundreds of millions of years older in time than the origin age of the _to design_ activity.
This is why nothing in life or the universe can be any result of any creation. Because this is not how history and the order of it works and why the _to create_ activity's origin is more recent in later time periods.
In theism such as christianity the denial of the actual order of historical events is a feature - rather than a mistake.
Just like the virgin birth is a feature for the denialism of annoyingly limitating biological reasons.
It is like that someone points out that in reality mothers give birth to their sons and this huge factual limitation that it is not reversible leads to some people being emotionally very unhappy with this mundane fact - and so they try to sell the denial as a virtue to say: My god or text about my god can make it that sons give birth to their mothers!
Despite of it being just a romantisized rephrasing of the denialism due to being annoyed about the limitations within reality that parents having children and not vice versa.
That is why God shall hear prayers - meaning air vibration, despite of having no hearing organs such as ears to do so and to perform the process of hearing. Such as hearing would be an annoying reminder of what is actually truthful.
I never encounter any theist to tackle this issue in "good faith". Theists I did encounter never tried to engage to face the specific denialism of limitation & boundery parts within reality.
God bless you for your courage to take on these questions, JP.
Atheists generally don't have a problem with religion as literature or metaphor. The atheist's problem with religion is threefold: The supernatural claims, the claim to the historicity of the text, and the claim to ultimate moral authority. Being an evolutionary biologist and teacher, Richard Dawkins has had to spend his life defending his work against religious people who make these claims. Jordan Peterson has gained fame and fortune from religious people by avoiding these three claims like the plague, and he knows it.
I only wish that Richard Dawkins would have pushed harder, but he seems like a kind and patient person. This was even more evident the first time he was interviewed by JP. Dawkins was practically a saint. This interview put the arrogant self affirmation of religion on full display. JP could have traded his self affirmation for curiosity like he has with other guests. From reading Dawkin's books I find him to be someone who is genuinely fascinated with the natural world. I can relate to that. Unfortunately the only interviews I can ever find with Richard Dawkins are either conducted by people who don't know enough to ask good questions, or by religious people who are trying to score points. I for one would love to hear about his childhood in Africa, or his favorite animal and why, his opinion on the decline of monogomy, what it was like working with Christopher Hitchens, if he has any ideas on the origin of language,... I could keep going. I thought JP would be the guy to conduct a good interview..... yeah. As Christopher Hitchens would say, "religion poisons everything." This time the poison killed curiosity.
hey as a Christian I naturally disagree with you a bit, but I agree it would be nicer to hear more about Dawkins as a person than just him debating and defending his beliefs all the time!
I don't think Jordan is avoiding the questions because he gets paid by religious people. most serious Christians I know think his takes on the Bible are often laughable since he misquotes it constantly and misappropriates quotes to different characters constantly, but ultimately we appreciate his open mindedness towards at least encouraging people to read the thing and see for themselves if they can take something of value out of it.
definitely wish Jordan had done a better job here. Dawkins is an interesting guy beyond simply his debates on religion
Its a proven fact an athiest cannot exist without pride.
Who is the bro moderating?
CosmicSkeptic
Why place Islam on a lower level than Christianity if you are an atheist? Why is virtue an achievement? What is virtue and why and how can we say it is a good thing? Dawkins is a solid materialist, who does not seem to understand or appreciate that faith is the basis of all human conceptions.
Peterson is desperately rambling about and chaotically throwing about useless irrelevant terms hoping Dawkins will simply say, that is correct to something irrelevant to anything.
He was simply agreeing which religion has made the most or least progress on morality on a global scale. Seeing as most developed countries do not define themselves by a religion, the ones that do are often aligned with the Islamic faith. Regarding the multi-cultural societies that share different religious views with different groups, the levels would be different.
But as an atheist I do judge Judaism and Islam as being in every level lesser. Seeing as they mutilate babies and cut away body parts without any medical reason, adding risks to their healthy even. Tragically, even when looking at all religious people only few of those religions despise that.
@@SOSULLI You just demonstrate you don't understand what is being discussed. Dawkins is a strict materialist, as you might be, which is why he is flummoxed at any argument not based upon materialism.
@@thomassenbart I'm perfectly aware on Dawkins and his views. Your assumption on whether there is an understanding lays on Peterson himself. He is faced with his ignorance and babbles on going into morale and ethics in history and Dawkins, like you said being a materialist and such a question, does not take him serious in any form. That is why he simply answered one of Peterson's irrelevant questions simply, instead of satisfying Peterson by going deeply into it. Seeing as Peterson would like nothing more than to avoid the question and pretend he is the expert with his ego babbling on, using useless terms.
So I'm guessing if Dawkins would have disagreed he knew he would start a different discussion on levels of morale, which like you said is not relevant to him at that time.
So obviously I hope you do not think that regarding the truth and facts he had set no levels, especially as he clearly stated on the bible it was made up, if there was any truth at all, so he is kind of set on the bible possibly being completely made up with no truth, making relevant levels of truth and facts impossible.
@@SOSULLI I would not make the assertion that anything Peterson says is egocentric. He searches for truth and has rejected materialism as a means to that end. I would say he is much further along that path than say M. Dawkins.
I did not hear Peterson say that the Bible was made up are you referring to M. Dawkins?
Peterson's basic premise is that narrative drives reality as a frame from which all derives. So, the story, is reality is multiple senses, and the truths derived from it are relevant again from multiple perspectives. If, however, one is only concerned with matter itself and have no concerns beyond that, it's like teaching philosophy to a stone and Peterson's message becomes irrelevant.
@@thomassenbart
That makes no sense. Do you watch any debates of Dawkins? He has a lot of different views on morale and the development of religion. He doesn't acclaim, well it didn't happen so we're done here. You're implying Peterson has rejected materialism as a means to truth....no he hasn't. Just like any other person in the world. You can't "reject" the fact that there are truths you accept due to its material evidence. That's the difference between a relevant discussion, so not on whether the earth is flat and a discussion on whether God exists. The simple difference between Peterson and Dawkins is where they set that border on certain issues. If you were to ask Peterson whether he believes in evolution, he could say....yes. So he doesn't reject materialism...there are 100s of questions relevant to religion he would reject due to its materialistic evidence proving the opposite.
It's a absurdly simple question. He could say, no or yes and add a; but I think it is also relevant to ask about the morale of the story. Then Dawkins, like in many discussions, could say, I believe there is a meaning to the story....
Truth is truth, fact is fact. Pretty simply.
*Also you commented on the Dawkins giving levels to different religions. I simply said it's not regarding truth as he considers the bible to be made up.
If God present himself fully to us without any questions. The burden of no doubts would be heavier...
These are the sorts of intellectual conversations I enjoy.
The fact historically Christian countries that are run in a secular way are better than certain Islamist governments in the middle east does not speak to the brilliance of Christianity. There was plenty of fundamentalism in Christianity's past. Also, it took the West a long time to recapture the spark of ancient Greece and Rome, and when it did it was in spite of the church, not because of it.
I prefer JP when he talks about practical things, psychology, modern politics. This mumbo jumbo stuff is a bit out of control.
Peterson leans in & he takes a drink 😂
Jordan has to believe in the resurrection and the virgin birth in order to be a Christian, it’s a matter of faith based belief
There are apparently Christians who don't believe those things literally happened, but they are hard to find. I'd say I'm one of them. I believe in the truth about reality contained in the myth, but not the actual scientific veracity of it. I think to believe any cultural myth is literally historically accurate is foolish from a scientific perspective.
"Virtually nothing" isn't nothing, the smallest amount means everything.
.
Dawkins was asked what he meant by cultural christian before, and his answer was that Christianity produced the only societies he would want to live in. But because Peterson put him in a corner to concede his point about the good of Christianity and its culture, Dawkins did what he does best. Say whatever needs to be said to avoid conceding to his opponent.
@@skydriver5709 I highly doubt Dawkins would have any issue living in Japanese society. He would probably prefer it to most Western nations these days were it not for unrelated things like the language barrier.
Lord Jesus bless you!
@@Bob-v6h8t I don't care what you highly doubt. Dawkins already stated from his own mouth that he prefers to live within Christian culture. Can he live in other cultures? Sure. Could he live on the ISS? Sure. Could he live in Antarctica? Sure. Could he have lived in an ancient Norse culture? Sure. Sure. Sure.
The point is he said something about Christian culture over other cultures, when he expressed it was his preferred culture. He only said "virtually nothing", to avoid conceding to Peterson's proposition.
I still respect Dr. Peterson.
Mr Dawkins is addressing Mr Peterson as Jordan and Mr Peterson is addressing Mr Dawkins as Dr Dawkins.
So what?
@@nabber.6436 Chicken butt.
Dawkinns suggested partway through this conversation that they switch to first name basis which they all seemed to do no one was being disrespectful here.
as they should
Man, Dr. Dawkins lacks abstract thinking! God forgive me, his behaviour wasn't the brightest.. Dr. Peterson was handing out golden nuggets about how Christianity was a black swan erasing all the cruelty and bringing mercy into the human structures, while Dr. Dawkins was repeating silly questions over and over again. What importance does the fact of Dr. Peterson believing in Virgin Birth has any value to the understanding of the deeper messages the Bible has?! Dr. Petersons answers were to the point and addressed the real issues and questions, viewers like me have. Without those two having posed the questions. God bless all the participants
Been waiting for this debate for a LONG time.
Wasn't much of a debate. JP took up 90% of the conversation dancing around questions, while Dawkins basically kept asking things that amounted to, "Ok, we get that, but what's your point?" Only after an hour of rambling did JP finally get to something resembling a point, at which moment the video ended and told you to go pay to see the rest on Daily Wire.
Truth or goodness. What’s the link?
It all goes back to the question, do you believe in God?
And if you do, would he be capable of performing the virgin birth? If not, how was this God able to create everything that is, yet not have the ability to do so?
Yeah that is a good point. Well you do have to admit that due to scientific development some things had to be altered. If their fundamental belief is that God exists and it is omnipotent, then they simply have to continue building their system around it. Like saying, well God is so powerful he built the earth in a week with 2 people. Then the theory of evolution gained more validity. Now almost all people that are religious that I know can't deny it. But now they start claiming, well God created the first simple being on earth and let it develop itself into the humans we are today.
We are almost at the point where the old and new testament are simply stories made to teach someone a lesson. I mean, look at the old testament....I literally don't know anyone that honestly believes the story of Noah and his arc of all animals two by two on a big boat...
@@SOSULLI I do
If you actually listen to Jordan more often you will realise this isnt a bullshit answer at all. He is not trying to enforce his opinions, he`s trying to search for meaning and truth.
"Scientific truths" like temperature, pressure, and viscosity are abstract concepts that don't exist as tangible objects in the material world. They are simplifications and models scientists use to understand and predict natural phenomena-tools that have enabled us to achieve feats like travelling to the Moon. These concepts are not "real" in a physical sense but are invaluable for our survival and progress. Both scientific models and religious teachings are abstractions that, while not materially and historically real, play crucial roles in helping our society function effectively.
Temperature, pressure and viscosity are real in the physical sense, they can measured and defined.
nonsense
If a person sets another person on fire, the person on fire doesn't actually burn, the temperature doesn't actually rise, because all these are abstract concepts and not tangible.of if a person goes deep enough his lungs won't be crushed by the pressure of the ocean, because pressure is an abstract concept. Right?
A big reason for the general scepticism is the wretched quality of the interpretation of the antediluvian account.
Dr Peterson put on the spot whilst being questioned about the virgin birth. Regardless of his passion and defence of some mythical aspects, it defies scientific logic however much you swing your arms around and raise your voice. When the conversation extends to discussing dragons, it starts to breakdown into absurdity.
That’s kind of the point. If a guy claims to be God, but never does anything out of the ordinary then he’s just crazy. If he is God it would make sense that he’d prove it by breaking laws of nature/physics. I’ve never understood how this is a gotcha by atheists
@@westacheny4162 You shouldn't have to break the laws of physics to be a God, you should only be able to be an inspiration. High level wizardry is an illusion, being a muse for the betterment of yourself is reality.
@@westacheny4162 That's the problem, did he prove anything? the problem is that everything that he defended, and his to become religion defends, stands that laws of nature/physics, can be broken, and that's not what we see in the current reality, therefore, it's easy to conclude, that materialism is the only reality we can assure to be real, and consciousness isn't something that we can understand, yet.
His whole schtick is an appreciation for the allegorical value of the Biblical stories. Where he screws up is in his attempt to conflate this with actual Christian belief. As for the dragons, what he doesn't understand is that there is no confusion about dragons being abstract extrapolations of various predators. What's being asked of him is, "What's your point?" Why bring a biologist into a discussion about allegory and symbolism?
Mobile phones and aircraft defied scientific fact, up until a few decades ago....
Our understanding of the true nature of reality is only just beginning...
We do not truely know the extent of what is or isn't possible... A little humility can go a long way...
JP, really surprised me I'm so use to him answering questions & not avoiding answering them. Was he being interviewed for a job as a politician ? If so he's got the job.
I am a small teacher from india and I am always trying to spread your message in my classes. This way I am spreading God's message indirectly. My students really like it and feel inspired.
You should keep your religious beliefs out of your classroom.
@@marat6053 what's makes you think classes are not for teaching religious values?
@@nanuthedogvlog3885 because indoctrination in school is not okay. No matter which side does it
@@marat6053 Again my questions remains the same. Why do you think it's not okay in schools? Like why are you afraid that something wrong will happen because of these?
@@nanuthedogvlog3885 As long as it's a private school, I don't care. But under no circumstances does the state have the right to indoctrinate children. Especially not with religion. The separation of church and state is an important achievement
I have never heard anyone speak so much and say so little as Jordan Peterson when he talks about biblical mythology.
Yes, Jordan's gradiloquence is ridiculous. I just love when he goes on and on with a long winded and verbose question, and then Dawkins responds with: "Yes" or "No". :)
Jordan isn't avoiding answering the question. The issue is just so much bigger than this question. The answer is: it doesn't matter, but yes, it probably did happen.
Lol. I like how you defend JP. Well done
Exactly. Dawkins uses this question as a sticking point, in an attempt to derail the conversation, in his favour. Whether the events took place or not is irrelevant. What matters is, what effect does it have on a society, if that socieity chooses to believe in the teachings, as they are written, vs socities that choose to believe otherwise....
Maybe it matters to Dawkins
What's the point of debating then if u can say it doesn't matter lmaoo
Whether or not the virgin birth was a reality will never change my belief in the value of the Golden Rule and my belief in the existence of a transcendent reality behind it, as well as being behind the miracle that a collection of self-replicating molecules made out of star dust could ever exist, let alone evolve to the point of possessing a conscious mind as well as a conscience.
I did enjoy this, but perhaps a discussion with Chris Langan on the nature of God and his understanding of Christianity would be more illuminating?
While beliefs evolve, the values from cultural Christianity offer a steady moral compass for societies, even for those who do not practice Christianity as a faith. It’s not just about religion-it’s about maintaining an ethical and cultural legacy that has shaped many societies in lasting ways. For example:
1).Moral Foundation: Cultural Christianity often forms a basis for societal values, encouraging principles such as compassion, justice, and forgiveness. Even in secular societies, these values help define right and wrong, affecting laws and societal expectations.
2. Community and Social Stability: Cultural Christianity contributes to community-building by promoting values that emphasize family, charity, and social responsibility. Churches and Christian-inspired organizations historically offer services like education, health care, and aid for the disadvantaged.
3. Cultural Heritage and Identity: Christianity has shaped art, literature, philosophy, and music, forming a shared cultural heritage that unites diverse populations. This continuity provides individuals with a connection to their past, giving context to modern life and a sense of belonging.
4. Ethical Governance: Many political and legal systems in the West derive from Christian principles of human rights and dignity. Cultural Christianity supports ethical governance by emphasizing accountability and a duty to serve the common good.
Chatgpt ahhh comment
So what. ..
You honestly believe pre Christian societies did not have any values? Christianity definitely does not emphasize family nearly as strongly as pre-Christian cultures did. Luke 14:26 specifically denies the very emphasis on familial legacy that was central to pre-Christian European worldview. Pre-Christian Europeans had a strong emphasis on hospitality and responsibility to kith and kin. They had education and apprenticeships and aid long before Christianity came along. They had art and music and philosophy and a stronger sense of connection to their culture and history than Christianity could ever offer, considering that it is a Middle Eastern faith that was introduced to Europe rather than anything stemming organically from the native cultures themselves. Not even trying to be rude here, but your claim is just historically ignorant.
@@Bob-v6h8t I never said they didn’t have values, what I said was Christian values became the moral code or the golden rule which it supersedes pre-Christian values.
Here is why Unified Moral Framework is important: Christianity introduced a common ethical and moral framework based on shared beliefs, such as the Ten Commandments and teachings on virtues like compassion, charity, and humility. This gave Europeans a sense of shared values, helping to reduce conflicts based on differing tribal customs.
Influence of Canon Law: The Church established canon law, which provided guidelines on marriage, property rights, and morality, influencing civil law across Europe. This consistency helped stabilize communities and create a sense of predictable order.
@@CF_Texas The idea that Europeans didn't have any unity of values prior to Christianity is nonsense. The only difference that Christianity made in terms of unity was political. Instead of people having their own disparate customs and traditions, they were either adapted to fit Christianity or were annihilated and replaced. There is an entire book on this, "The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity" by Dr. James Russell. He talks about how Christianity impacted Europe and also how Europe pushed back on early Christianity, effectively changing the way it became established, too.
I understand his statement. I pray now that his wound will be healed.
I generally agree with what you're saying but you basically said "We can't orient our selves in the world only based off of facts. And that's a fact!"
I've been told by multiple people that Greece is beautiful. I've never been to Greece. But I know these people, I have a relationship with them. I have seen or heard other things they consider beautiful and so I trust their opinion. If someone were to ask me "Is Greece Beautiful? Yes or No." I would have to say "I dont know" because I've never been there. But I trust those who have been there so I "believe" (trust) that Greece is beautiful.
"Is the virgin birth biological fact?" "Did the Resurrection factually happen?" "Did miracles happen?" I weren't there. I don't know.
What I do know is that a very large portion of the Biblical Narrative has spoken to me in a positive way. And I know that by following the advice of the early church leaders about living self sacrificially with love and humility my life has moved in a positive direction despite(or because of) shattering difficulties.
So, because they have proved themselves trustworthy in relation to how I live my life, I am going to trust them when they tell me "Mary was a Virgin" "Jesus rose from the Dead" "Jesus and His disciples and people throughout the last 2K years have healed peopled and preformed other Miracles"
Is that ignorant or based on evidence? Are "Facts" even remotely relevant to the Truths of the Christian Narrative?
There is a great deal of value in the writings of Greek philosophers. People who study them, the Stoics, etc. often say that these teachings have had a positive impact. Does that mean that these same people should then, in turn, believe in the truth claims that Zeus is the King of the Gods and all the other stories involved in pre-Christian Greek religion? Silly take.
Brilliant!
@@Bob-v6h8t I don't think it is a silly take. I agree that the Greek Philosophers have wisdom. But the Greek culture isn't stagnant. They took the wheat of the philosophers and when they encountered Christianity they burnt the chaff and grew as a culture.
So if the philosophy of the Greeks has a positive influence on someone they might look to where that philosophy lead the culture and realize that the Greeks don't believe that Zeus is King of the Gods. It's Christ.
@@gabfr3194 Anyone who appreciates the Stoics or Epicureanism would disagree with you on it being considered the chaff compared to Christianity. If evolution of belief is your argument, then the trend toward atheism would suggest that people are gradually casting off of the chaff of Christianity to reveal the wheat of enlightenment. Countries like Greece have official state churches in which people are enrolled by default, so it is difficult to discern what the majority actually believe. I highly doubt, though, that Greece is genuinely majority Christian today.
Is that not the same disabling of critical thinking that leads people into cults? I don’t think you should insult your intelligence by deciding that, because a text has got you so far in life already, that you should then uncritically believe everything it says
Mr Peterson, it has been a Privilege to watch you and your guests, these 3 years. 🙏 Iron sharpens Iron.
Myths are precursors to facts. Man, one day dreamed he would fly just as he one day dreamed he would walk on the moon.
you are confusing a myth with a dream. myths are fanciful/fictional stories about how you got somewhere, not where you wish to go in the future. Like it is a myth that humanity was spoken into existance by the flatulence of a colossal turtle and we now live on his back and he slowly walks about the universe. but a dream to go to mars and set up a colony.
Interesting take, it's more of an in-between answer, where it welcomes both dogmatists and unfeathered philosophers to consider the usefulness of not rushing to eliminate religion as it is the best that we as whole could muster until we naturally leave it behind.
@@jeolman1 Getting cramps because you didn't wait 30 minutes after eating to go swimming, is a myth. Myths are what you described, but they're also much more than that. As with most words, there's more than 1 definition, because words can have broader meanings than just 1.
@@jeolman1 you're confusing myth with urban legend. To qualify as mythic in psychology a story needs archetypal staying power or people will forget the details that are not relevant. I ask you please do not erode the meanings of words.
Way to stay sharp Dr. Peterson. Jolly good show.
@@tryaluck he reminded me of a boxer sparring with two opponents, as an exercise.
@@tryaluck an inability for them to except a legitimate answer and run a hustle for the ridiculousness of their delusional "point" does not reflect poorly on his lack of patience with the same shit different day bullshit.
As a doctor, i leave my faith at the door. It has nothing to do with my skill with treating a patient. When a surgeon operates on a patient, only his skills matter. His Religion ia not a factor.
I know this was a digression but I was shocked :
“How do you make a case, on purely factual grounds, that women should be treated as equals?”
Like it’s difficult? And how do you, on purely factual grounds, make the argument that men are greater than and have a right to oppress? Religion certainly makes a moral assumption for a specific hierarchy, not an argument, and purely factual grounds have historically been used to liberate women from oppression. I’m not sure how he could say that unless he hasn’t given it much thought or doesn’t give much value to women. He says it as if it’s a really quandary
Biologically, women aren’t as strong as Men (talk about testosterone and muscle mass amongst a few others). Stay with me now
As to power & politics (who rules), the strongest (in survival, hunting, warfare) sits on the throne over others( look back on all biological history -man & animal). So if you remove morals - which were woven by the very fabrics of Christianity, women will be far from being treated equally with men because there are fundamental biological differences that give men the advantage of strength over women...it’s not a postmodern thing, it happens that our early ancestors were intelligent enough to deduce by primordial sense that the strongest anything rule the weakest anything.
I’m not sure much can be done about that fundamental structure by which Society is set up ( it’s even interesting to know this structure has replicated itself across different cultures that have never met themselves before, just like the similarities in heroic and shamanic history across different cultures).
I’m sure if you peel off Christianity, you cannot make a case for equality because, in these old stories, there are axioms that make a case for equality to begin with.
Science is the modern language of mysticism, mythology is the oldest language of mysticism.
Hope it helps.
You're missing the point
@ not really, I clearly stated in my first sentence that it’s not the main point
@@laurenc8387 ok well then you're missing the point of your own digression
What do you mean? "Purely factual" doesn't allow for morality at all, one way or the other.
There will come a day when all knees will bow and all tongues will confess that Jesus is Lord
Or maybe confess Odin is Lord. You dont know.
@@henrikns nope, YOU don't know. We do.
We followed the trail of evidence to where it leads. Just because you haven't doesn't give you the excuse to go around claiming we're all just as ignorant as you are.
If you don't believe me, look up 'cold-case Christianity', a cold-case detective who didn't believe came to Christ after using his skills to try and dismantle the Bible. Now I'm not saying just because one guy concluded it's true, that Christianity is true. I'm just saying there's tons of evidence to conclude that to be the case, and if you want to see it laid out nicely you should look into it.
I am completely fine with cultural Christianity. If we as Christians of Faith do as we are called to do by God, He will open the avenues for cultural Christians to come to Christ.
I was an athiest for 31 years. Undergrad in the sciences and then nursing. I am 32 now. If you can't look at science, and not see there are discrepancies in science that need strict questioning, we will fail to see on the same plane. Conversely, if you can't look at any single religion and point out discrepancies in it that need strict questioning...we will not see on the same plane...
The only thing that I can differentiate between now and the past 31 years...is a matter of perceiving the amount of evil in the world, and even in yourself, and understanding the difference between being an evil human or being a good human, and realizing the value of striving to be your best to do good for yourself and for others, to strive to be your best self. Doing so will bring you more fulfillment, sense of purpose, happiness, connectivity, and feelings of greater perspective, than any single scientific fact could ever explain...
I used to always laugh at an old song intro beginning with a skit "ya know they say there's no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole?..." (Abacabb btw)
*BS. Being in a foxhole...some God...That's just suggestive there is no God*
Fastforward to 2024, I believe I heard Jordan Peterson say something along the lines of "*one individual* said that the modern man doesn't see religion because they haven't looked low enough" ... and I can tell you, that is the damn truth.
Lastly and most importantly, what's changed is discovering that there are FAR greater fates than death.
I was empty and sad for 31 years and never really acknowledged or knew why...
Today, I am happy to be alive every single damn day, my stress is minimal despite having more chaos in my life than ever before, and have absolutely no anxiety. Or fear of dying.
*before the athiest elites come out...the same as I did and would...know I didn't say a word about believing in God, Christianity, or even being religious. But it's a weird feeling, dudes. Hope you get to experience it.*
And always remember...
*Be. Excellent. To. Each. Other.*
Do you mean to say that you were an athiest at 2 years of age?
@johnkruse5879 how'd I know 😂 I mean when religion was pushed on me as a child, it was never internalized or believed to be true/significant. At least for as long as I remember.
Mat 1:18 “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”
Mat 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Mat 1:22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, (Isaiah 7:14) saying,
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
The Bible begins with the Spirit of God moving…then speaking…..light and there was light etc. Jesus was spoken into being…the Spirit of God moved upon Mary and it was so…..conception took place
Joh 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
A cultural christian is like a guy thats wants a paycheck without showing up to work
Not really. Marriage and monogamy is a Christian practice but a lot of aethist get married because it makes sense lol
A genuine Christian is like a guy that invents a grand narrative around all of the work he isn't doing.
@@ElRoberto182 ill agree with you to a certain extent. A genuine christian just like everyone else is a wreched creature that wants to do right. And genuinely tries to do so. Sin is human nature. Thats why Christ came thats where he comes in.
The word is 'MIRACLE'. Why is it so difficult to say?
The birth, the resurrection, the healings, the calming of the strom, the wine, the bread being multiplied, the sea parting etc, etc. The Bible is not a scientific text, yet all these things are true because God has the power to do it.
All Dawkins did was attempt to pin JP down and have him actually acknowledge whether he believes in the historicity of these events, these miracles if you prefer, or not. Christians do this without issue every day, but JP dodges. His whole schtick is conflating appreciation of the allegorical value of Biblical stories with actual Christian belief. Obviously, the two are not the same thing.
“Virtually nothing.” Dawkins is lost. From a position of Christian derived morality, he criticises Islam. Then claims Christianity deserves no credit. I don’t think he can have a real discussion.
You say christian derived morality but you do realize many enlightenment thinkers were influenced by islam right? Is that why modern christianity has the barbarism that it does?
One of the central disputes here is that Dawkins is whole scale dismissing the biblical story on all fronts because there are events that contradict currently scientific stories of how the material world works. Then he dismisses the whole text. When there is push back, he points out ways that some biblical stories appear to violate some modern ethical principles and then whole scale dismisses all moral thoughts that come from all biblical stories. Whether or not there was a resurrection or whether or not there is a virgin birth has no bearing on whether or not the moral teachings from the stories are true (or better than other teachings).
Without Christianity there would not have been a university for Dawkins to go to.
..and without evolution there would be no humans and no Chistianity, says this cultural Chistian.
that is highly debatable. How do you know that there wouldnt have been another institution taking the role that christianity had in our culture and thus creating unis?
Doubtful, seats of learning existed long before Christianity was invented.
Okay. Probably not the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but pretty close.
@@peterenevoldsen7199 *Despite Christianity, Dawkins had a university to go to. There, fixed it for you.
13:22 😂😂😂
Richard Dawkins: "I think Jordan prioritizes myth and I prioritize facts"
Jordan Peterson: *Nods*
If God is the creator of all the earth and all the heavens; he created man and woman out of dust breathing life into them. How is it difficult to believe that a virgin birth is impossible? Disprove it based on the fact that we believe in a God that is the creator of all things.
You're making a circular argument. You're saying, "Disprove a Christian belief based upon... Christian belief."
No, the point is maybe - of all the "absurd" (i.e. supernatural) things you read in the Bible, why pick the Virgin birth?...
The problem is that people believe in the fairytale called 'Evolution'.
@@ocdchristian Does God exist? So...? Can't you even imagine that If God exists, things like that would be possible.
@@BrenoAmado Dude, I'm on your side! 😂 That is if you're saying God does exist.
According to JP, who cares if RD's answer to his question about whether some event occurred or not. If JP answers, "Yes, it did occur," "No, it didn't occur," or "I don't know if it occurred," it doesn't change the validity of the deep mythological enterprise from the Bible's stories. It's not what something is but what it means. Meaning is everything.
Have either Peterson or Dawkins read CS Lewis's Miracles?
It seems that these two agree that miracles and rationality are mutually exclusive; a thesis I have serious qualms with. It just so happens that Dawkins believes that all of epistemology works entirely on the level of fact-value basis whereas Peterson sees it as one level of analysis to be used at one level of investigation.
I agree with your multi-level epistemology Dr. Peterson, but I think you need not put rationality against miracles. The incarnation has been investigated rationally and deeply by the early church fathers who were great defenders of reason (i.e. Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus). Why this false dichotomy?
JP deliberately conflates the mere appreciation of the allegorical value found in the Biblical stories with actual Christian belief. It's a grift. He knows his audience.
@@Bob-v6h8t you dont do much do you. lmao this is like an easter egg hunt
@@Bob-v6h8t Not quite. He's very clear that he believes Christian fundamentalists lose the philosophical battle against the new atheists on the scientific ground. He believes it's a weak foundation and believes that the allegorical story is a better foundation than claiming the biblical story to be historically true. He also believes the allegorical value of the Bible to be more widely applicable than it's history. He subsumes the Biblical narrative to Jungian archetypes. My point is that I don't see the need for this dichotomy. If you can make the case that something or someone like God created the cosmos, then I see no rational problem with any acts of "recreation" He would like to stick in to his creation at various points. In the Bible, when Jesus turns the water into the wine, he has that ability and right as creator, it breaks no natural laws as the water, now transformed into wine, acts just as wine does. God introduces a new thing into his created order and lets the laws of nature incorporate the new phenomena.
@@joelsmith957 Dawkins is more concerned with the implications of people actually believing the religion's claims to be matter-of-fact truth. People didn't burn "heretics" at the stake over allegorical value. Those Dominionist and Fellowship type special interest groups aren't attempting to influence public policy based upon there simply being some meaningful value in Biblical stories. If JP just said, "No, I don't actually believe it to be historically, matter-of-fact true, but there is value in the stories," no one would be drilling him about it. It's the fact that he evades and claims to be Christian and claims that even atheists are actually Christian and all that nonsense that gets people trying to pin him down and be direct about it. He's not alone, either. At this point, there is a pseudo Christian movement developing, and people are right to call BS on it.
"Is fire a predator?"
"....no" 😂😂😂
The answer to "was Jesus born of a virgin" is YES. The blood that still appears to this day on the rock jesus was laid on after being taken down of cross in Jerusalem, shows only 24 chromosomes: 23 maternal chromosomes, and one Y chromosome. That's scientific proof of the miraculous conception.
Science is full of examples of geniuses who were in front of their time and whose ideas were rediculed by mainstream scientist and that were much later proved to be correct.
You can't argue over whether or not a house is haunted with a person who refuses to disbelieve ghosts.
Lord Jesus bless you!
It's easy prove ghost exist that s all
It would be more exciting if experts of various disciplines discuss these things like Harari, Peterson, Dawkins, and many more thinkers.
Happy to report, I personally have ZERO chimpanzee cousins.
Every single person in the video accepts the fact of evolution.
@@kentl7228 😂 you mean the cult/ religious belief of evolutionism
well thats not quite how it works. If your a Homosapien, (and you are) then your a subspecies of the great apes, they also include Chimpanzee, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Orangutangs, and then slightly further distant relation is the Gibon.
@@vashmatrix5769 what art you talking about they sequenced the human Genome, look up the genome project.
@@vashmatrix5769 That was delusional. Evolution is corroborated and proven as fact by DNA, comparative anatomy, cladograms, geology (oil prospecting uses index fossils), observed in nature. It is a fact that is accepted by Dawkins, Peterson and O'Connor in the very video you watched. It is only denied by religious zealots because it is a threat to the faith and therefore living forever. The Catholic Church accept evolution as fact as well as many other religious people of authority. But if you want to live in the stone age and deny evolution, be happy to be in the company of the likes of people who protest the funerals of killed US soldiers or the Taliban. Please ensure to avoid modern medicine, matter how your health is, as much of medicine uses evolution science to make life saving products.
Heavy Empiricism shunning the very less empirically dependent inquiries is very much like the metaphorical dog biting the hand that feeds it.
Dragons conversing over their treasures and the value in them.