@hlgibson11 following him into debates on UA-cam made me realize the other side was more evidence and factually based. I've went through so many I can't even doubt God or Jesus.
@@hlgibson11 I'll be honest, I was mostly being funny. But there was a time for 15 years that I would have considered myself an "angry athiest." Richard Dawkins was one such person I'd often point to in my arguments, but after awhile I realized that his arguments were generally from a perspective of willful ignorance and the phrase, "None are so blind as those who refuse to see," certainly applied to him. The fact that he can't even grant one point in favor of what Christianity has done right is just a testament to this fact.
@@mikefox1257 Evidence and factually based? When you're sick or need a surgery, do you go the church and pray? last time i checked, people always go to the hospital... i don't know how that makes god "factual".
Thank you for this channel! I grew up with an unhealthy relationship with god through my family. I turned my back to god and the bible for a while. And now alot of the people around me have made me feel shameful for still wanting to read the bible and still believe in god. I tried watching your videos months ago but I felt shameful because of the scrutiny that I have gotten for my beliefs. But with time, it is channels like this that make me feel more accepted to follow god and learn the word. I may not have anyone in my life to support me. But it is people like you on the internet that give me support and hope that I and doing the right thing. I am currently reading the bible and learning god for myself for the first time. Thank you!
Jordan really is very smart. Sometimes it might take me more than one viewing to unpack everything. And I also agree that the Bible is so complex that it just has to be true. Either way I'll never lose my faith in God. So Amen brothers 🙌
12:12 THIS! Understanding the Bible is like learning every facet of civilization. Understanding people’s social/class standing is soooooooo important for the time AND for tracking individuals in history. It’s actually incredibly amazing and can’t be by chance. Statistically.
Well JP rambled the entire time and made no sense again. Avoided every question and confused with his replies. Yet you got something you actually needed?
@@messybutmeaningful Yep, another person who calls him stupid because they didn't understand a word he said. Even DAWKINS understood some of what he said, and he's as opposite to Jordan's temperament as one can get. That says something about you bro, not Peterson lol
@@messybutmeaningful Like you really didn't get the gist that Jordan is talking about religion from a psychological and pragmatic point of view. That's why he says whether the events literally happened or not are secondary issues to him, because he's discussing the practical utility of it inasmuch as it gives human beings a moral foundation/value structure with which to facilitate the thriving of the species. If that went past your head, it's your own shortcomings getting in the way and not "Jordan Peterson dumb tho"
@@GaliscesGaming Yeah, 2 things can be true at once... he believes that the fictional stories of the bible have benefited humanity, and also that he knows Jesus very obviously did not rise from the dead and certainly wasn't born of a virgin. It's the fact he won't just answer the damn question and admit it that makes it obvious that he's just a grifter who has done very very very well for himself simping for the right wing religious fundamentalist media. He ain't about to bite the hand that feeds him!
@@randomutubr222 I don't think that's the issue. If you pay good attention, which it was kind of a quick line so I'm not trying to be down on you if you didn't catch it, he states to Dawkins that he doesn't like the attempt to completely dismiss or toss out Christianity because the historical events it talks about didn't literally happen in a scientific way, which is what I kind of suspected. It makes sense. He believes Christianity centers around stories that are very helpful for humanity stepping forward and embracing good ethics and morality, a leap from the barbarism we once knew, but there's this problem we have as humans which is if we don't believe in the 'realness' of a thing, any motivation we can get from that thing will be more superficial than it otherwise would've been if we did believe in the realness of said thing. Because of that problem, he doesn't want to undercut the faith of any of his audience because that faith, whether based in objective scientific data or not, would do more harm than good by undercutting their moral foundations to the point that at best their morality would be more superficial and at worst they would regress back into barbarism or barbarian-like behavior just in more subtle ways that manifest themselves in more modern modes of being. So instead of people throwing spears at eachother, they might be more inclined to stab eachother in the back and that kind of thing, which funny enough could eventually lead to fullblown barbarism if a society embraced that kind of behavior to the utmost over a long enough period of time. Another problem is that Jordan is discussing the difference between objective scientific facts and narrative or moral values. His point is that there's not actually a difference, and the two are inherently entwined because without a value structure, we can't actually do things like science because doing science depends heavily on using a value structure of some kind to select which data is the most important or most relevant to that which you're researching at the moment. To put it simply, you can't claim that a value structure which is the foundation of science itself isn't objective, or else the whole idea of science crumbles. But that value structure is what the Bible is trying to abstract. Things like the truth will set you free, and that truth is a good pursuit. These aren't scientifically verifiable statements, but you can't do science without them.
I believe the day JP finally answers questions like the resurrection with a resounding yes will be the day he fully understands the power of submission to Christ
Observing Peterson's steady movement towards Christianity is like watching someone being born again in slow motion. His inevitable conversion is so fascinating to watch.
For me the only time these two men finally started speaking to each other was in the last 10 minutes where dawkins joined in the play of the conversation
When you said the part about being afraid to turn to god because of repeated mistakes bit..... That hit me. That hit me hard. Thats me. I pray so much to stop my alcoholism and promise to stop it all the time, that I feel God is probably ashamed of me. And in doing so I often shy away from praying for it because I feel at this point Ive worn it out. Ive promised to fix this shit so many times. But i fail. And that, in my eyes makes me a weak man. A man not worthy. Like I need to own this my self and then come back to GOD to show him that Ive put the work in and beat it my self.
You come to GOD because your weak. Don't go to GOD because you want to prove you are worthy or have done it, cause that will be presenting to HIM your own righteousness which HE considers filthy rags. Go and keep reasoning with HIM as demanded my the scriptures and HE will take you on a cleansing journey. Come boldly before the throne of mercy and obtain mercy and grace. HE rules upon a throne of mercy. Even addictions are within HIS scope of salvation. Trust in HIS love and make sure to have a sincere heart.
Try too a little bit of fasting and some intense prayers and word study too. We West African christians like beating the body hard and pressing hard into GOD too 😂😅. Try listening to Arome Osayi, Michael Orokpo, David Ogbueli. Maybe you can catch some tricks to help you on the topic.
Man this was an excellent exchange. I loved the way Jordan described his last points about the cross and resurrection connection to the snake image God commanded Moses to make in Exdous.❤
I Honestly need you to react to the final segment argument, because that's where they actually Agree and come together on something. And I think it would he great to share how you could come together on the subject of the bible
I have become a symbolist christian, in large, because of Peterson's explanations of Christianity. He made me think a lot about the definition of God. That's where it all starts. Once you understand the definition of God, you can get real wisdom from the stories. But Dawkins and Peterson have fundamentally different definitions of God, that's why they tend to talk past each other. The word God is probably the deepest word that we have. I think the real, actual definition of God is: the (spirit of the) Highest Good. (There are, in the different biblical stories, multiple different characterizations of God, but all these ‘sub-definitions’ fall under the overarching definition: the (spirit of the) Highest Good.) Now, here's the thing: (I think that) God isn’t a conscious being that literally exists; He isn’t some literal man watching us from another dimension. (I’m not a fundamentalist! I’m a symbolist.) I think Peterson totally agrees with this. I would be happy if he said this to Dawkins, that he doesn’t see God as some conscious being that literally exists in some other dimension. (You could still believe symbolically in a higher Being, that’s what makes this so difficult, because the symbolic reality is still very real.) If Jordan would say this I think there is a chance that Dawkins would actually agree with him on religion; they would at least get something real out of the conversation.
Can someone explain to me the brief moment the Ruslan spoke on the woman with the issue with blood for 12 years being connected to the 12 year old young girl who was raised from the dead by Jesus in Mark.
12:33 typical skeptic response when they don't understand it. Instead of admitting they are dumm, they will say what you said is nonsense or that it does not tickle their ears. Their argument is that if they don't understand it or not entertained by it or not getting a shock factor, it does not mean they are dumm but means that the things they say is nonsense. Arrogance and lack of humility. The path to the Kingdom of God is indeed narrow.
Bingo! What you are talking about is similar to the incredulity fallacy. A certain religion does it regularly when trying to dispute the Trinity. Their logic is that since the concept of the Trinity does not logically make sense to them, it can’t be real
Arrogance and pride is basically the two basic foundations that build up the bulk of why such people like Richard Dawkins reject God. They act as if they understand everything, and that their finite understanding of things is THE correct way. Basically, they themselves by their own thought processes and behavior, treat themselves like they are gods.
The irony of you spelling "dumb" incorrectly not once, but twice, while trying to attribute it to someone else, is absolutely hilarious. "Typical skeptic response when they don't understand it"... look in the mirror my guy.
Interesting commentary on the discussion. Alex is well suited as he's done multiple well thought out critiques of Peterson's theses. I'm an agnostic and think I likely always will be, but these types of discussions are very interesting. My understanding is that Peterson accepts biological evolution, including evolution of the human brain, and believes that whatever stories that persist have developed along humanity's evolutionary path, and these stories can relate truths that go back to the beginning of life, and somehow tie in to the universe. And this makes the stories "real", and worth promoting, turning inside out, and use as a basis for guiding us. O'Conner has convincingly used the Harry Potter story as exemplifying many of the same aspects Peterson has got out of Christianity. Dawkins is wired differently than Peterson, and ranks the "reality" of things differently than Peterson does. He does not think specific details of stories should be believed because they ring true to adherants of whatever religion believe them. And he, personally is not interested in the stories for which faith is needed to believe, although he may be interested in questions such as "why is the scientific method best expressed in Western Culture with a Christian heritage (post-Enlightenment and utilizing maths based on a foundation of algebra developed first by the Babylonians). Peterson feels his interpretation is valid and has lots of examples of how the stories explain concepts of right and wrong, and ways people should act in order to best go through there lives and contribute: if those stories morals can be explained in this context they are "real". Dawkins gets stuck on what can be proven in a mundne sense, using the tools of the Western scientific method, which neccessarily stops at a point Peterson blasts past in his investigation. I think it's fair to say Dawkins is OK saying "I don't know, and I can't know" to certain questions.:If that (I would say reality) is unacceptable, or perhaps not seen as a limiting factor (becausse I don't want to accuse Peterson of asserting he does not say he doesn't know about certain things, which he obviously acknowledges to be the case) then you can go further, as Peterson does. Anyway, I guess what I'm failingly trying to get at is I think both men are right in their own way, it's just that there intellectual interface with reality is different, although Peterson is personally more interesting to listen to than Dawkins as Dawkins doesn't arm-wave in the profound ways that Peterson does.
This is just yet another example of the difference an atheist and, well, a Christian(we’ll just approximate that here for JP even if he continually dodges it). The ultimate scientist vs the ultimate philosopher. Both are just speaking two different languages to which one- Dawkins- just cannot appreciate. Dawkins thinks SO strictly in terms of rigorous procedures and “logic” and has no appreciation for the abstract in the way Peterson or a theist does. Dawkins is definitely the sort of unbeliever who has his mind truly set. JP was dropping dimes and making very strong points. Even witnessing the resurrection himself wouldn’t be enough for him.
He was pinned down awhile back during an interview, I sadly don't remember who it was. He was literally asked "if there was a camera pointed towards the entrance to the tomb of christ the day of the resurrection, do you believe you would see him walk outside?" his answer was basically yes.
15:36 I think that’s the biggest difference here. Jordan is definitely more right brain where as he as able to conceptualize metaphors and the beauty of how the Bible still applies today. He of course still struggles to believe if it is complete true. (We know it is) Now on the other hand Richard Dawkins is clearly left brain. He deals only in facts. If you put them both in a museum, Jordan could appreciate the beauty and symbolism of the art but Richard wouldn’t be able to connect with it. In the same way, Richard is fascinated by modern science in a way that Jordan may or may not be interested. Overall, I see a correlation that those that are hyper intelligent and left brain have a hard time believing in God because “they can’t prove it”. Am I reaching here?
Richard Dawkins isn't really intelligent not even in his own scientific field. Seriously, I can't ever remember him making any good arguments. Even when making Scientific predictions, he is pretty awful at it. He is responsible for propagating the harmful myth upon science that most of DNA is junk.
Even when making Scientific predictions, he is pretty awful at it. He is responsible for pr0pagating the harmful myth upon science that most of DNA is junk.
@@TheQuest4Peace yeah ur correct , the only way people like Dr Richard Dawkins can come to God is only through experiencing God's miracles in their life.
Regardless there is a beginning to this design . On earth , we have examples of creation/designs coming from creators/designers. This might kind of enter the realm of "scifi" to him but i think richard can understand it , since he understands how far it could really go/how far its really gone. (On earth and the universe) The mistake here is thinking science/math isn't involved. (Look at humans..and the entire universe to see that it is)
I think you guys are missing something. Dawkins and Peterson both think completely differently. I listened to this whole interview before seeing your videos on it. This obviously is not about "decimating" one another. This is two men who obviously consider each other intellectual peers having a truly humble conversation with one another. While I love some of how y'all are breaking down, I'm disappointed at how you are also completely disrespecting a mind that is obviously completely different to your own. I honestly believe that Dr. Dawkins questions would've been more satisfactorily answered by Lee Strobel, to be honest. Please, please don't stoop to the low ground of making fun of someone in this way. As a fellow Christian, I am disappointed and disgusted that you would make fun of someone in this way. Also, I honestly believe that Dr. Peterson still is not truly Christian. Pay close attention to how he answers these questions. He Himself is still unsure of faith. Dr. Dawkins appreciates hard science, Dr. Peterson appreciates a more fluid science, and neither are fully convinced of the facts of salvation. I feel that Dr. Peterson fears the truth and his own intellect and that is keeping him from submitting himself.
Or he is playing a specific role in a way that wont get him immediately written off by, say Dawkins' audience. Dawkin's audience is unreachable by fundamental dogmatism. They need to be shown religion is more than that in a way that won't turn them off before the conversation even starts. It's a very effective strategy even if it looks alien to the old religious caste.
I disagree with the whole “isn’t Christian/isn’t TRULY Christian” remark that is so often lobbed at Dr. Peterson. Haven’t you known anyone that wrestled with very fundamental Christian doctrine? According to his friend Jonathan Pageau, this is where he’s at. I don’t think it’s helpful when people reduce it to a binary of “you’re either in or you’re out,” it reeks of arrogance. None of us know what one another truly believes deep down, that’s known to God only.
@calebalbertson1690 I totally get that, but JP always talks like this. This way of talking, then, isn't just for Dawkins. I've never been convinced that he actually believes. I think he's still working it out for himself. Your thoughts?
@@stickmastergib3665 It's not my intention to be arrogant. I find people "working it out" to be entirely valid mode. This can last for years and even a lifetime for many people.
@@kkso3318 If you're a public figure in the contemporary online space, you can't context switch as easily as you're suggesting. If he were to come out boldly with clear declarations of faith to Piers Morgan, that will be posted on every r/atheism type board within 30 minutes, and that will completely poison all online wells.
Richard Dawkins seems to be trying to find himself in scripture when one of the main points of scripture is to help us learn more about God and his love for us in turn strengthening our relationship with The Lord. This self-centered approach could lead to that coldness he feels. I pray he learns sooner than later.
It’s clear that don’t even want to listen to Dawkins’ arguments. At 12:36 he spoke for 2 seconds and you paused the video and played some childish soundboard. No care for what he was going to say. It’s so dishonest, disappointing really.
Loved this, but Dawkins is just ignorant and obstinate. I think he'd fail a 101 philosophy class, Ive never been impressed with anything from these new atheists.
@@Mifuneerasmus Dawkins is just focused on pure scientific fact but peterson is trying to explain that the world that humans live in is governed by a "spiritual abstract" reality
Dawkins is the most extreme version of lacking faith. Jordan at least has the faith to get to believing in the true accounts and not just the metaphorical meanings. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The atheists are winning at the start of any religious debate ...the claim god exists has been claimed for over 1800 years and never proven.... until you prove God exists...it doest ..theists have the burden of proof, no one was walking around denying gods until your lot made them up ...that's called logically factually, common sense and evidence based reality.... let me know when you can prove your imaginary friend..
@@aureum7479 The atheists are winning at the start of any religious debate ...the claim god exists has been claimed for over 1800 years and never proven.... until you prove God exists...it doest ..theists have the burden of proof, no one was walking around denying gods until your lot made them up ...that's called logically factually, common sense and evidence based reality.... let me know when you can prove your imaginary friend
By this same argument the Quran is true. Poets at the time thought the Quran had to be directly from God because no other literary creation was as perfect and as impressive. It's not a stretch that the writer of John was an educated man, he wrote in good Greek and was obviously a sophisticated theologian. Would it be that hard for him to parallel the story of the bronze serpent with Jesus dying on the cross? I don't get how it's proof that the resurrection was real.
Richard Dawkins has been instrumental in converting me to Christianity.
God bless you Ruslan! Continue to share the Good News.
This is such a funny comment. The leader of the atheists is the prime reason I became Christian. Would you be so kind as to share how that happened?
@dinkledork4421 👆
@hlgibson11 following him into debates on UA-cam made me realize the other side was more evidence and factually based. I've went through so many I can't even doubt God or Jesus.
@@hlgibson11 I'll be honest, I was mostly being funny. But there was a time for 15 years that I would have considered myself an "angry athiest." Richard Dawkins was one such person I'd often point to in my arguments, but after awhile I realized that his arguments were generally from a perspective of willful ignorance and the phrase, "None are so blind as those who refuse to see," certainly applied to him. The fact that he can't even grant one point in favor of what Christianity has done right is just a testament to this fact.
@@mikefox1257 Evidence and factually based? When you're sick or need a surgery, do you go the church and pray? last time i checked, people always go to the hospital... i don't know how that makes god "factual".
Thank you for this channel! I grew up with an unhealthy relationship with god through my family. I turned my back to god and the bible for a while. And now alot of the people around me have made me feel shameful for still wanting to read the bible and still believe in god. I tried watching your videos months ago but I felt shameful because of the scrutiny that I have gotten for my beliefs. But with time, it is channels like this that make me feel more accepted to follow god and learn the word. I may not have anyone in my life to support me. But it is people like you on the internet that give me support and hope that I and doing the right thing. I am currently reading the bible and learning god for myself for the first time. Thank you!
Jordan really is very smart. Sometimes it might take me more than one viewing to unpack everything. And I also agree that the Bible is so complex that it just has to be true. Either way I'll never lose my faith in God. So Amen brothers 🙌
No he isn't lol
12:12 THIS! Understanding the Bible is like learning every facet of civilization. Understanding people’s social/class standing is soooooooo important for the time AND for tracking individuals in history. It’s actually incredibly amazing and can’t be by chance. Statistically.
Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins talking about religion moderated by Alex O'Connor wasn't what we asked for, but it was what we needed.
Well JP rambled the entire time and made no sense again. Avoided every question and confused with his replies. Yet you got something you actually needed?
@@messybutmeaningful Yep, another person who calls him stupid because they didn't understand a word he said. Even DAWKINS understood some of what he said, and he's as opposite to Jordan's temperament as one can get. That says something about you bro, not Peterson lol
@@messybutmeaningful Like you really didn't get the gist that Jordan is talking about religion from a psychological and pragmatic point of view. That's why he says whether the events literally happened or not are secondary issues to him, because he's discussing the practical utility of it inasmuch as it gives human beings a moral foundation/value structure with which to facilitate the thriving of the species. If that went past your head, it's your own shortcomings getting in the way and not "Jordan Peterson dumb tho"
@@GaliscesGaming Yeah, 2 things can be true at once... he believes that the fictional stories of the bible have benefited humanity, and also that he knows Jesus very obviously did not rise from the dead and certainly wasn't born of a virgin. It's the fact he won't just answer the damn question and admit it that makes it obvious that he's just a grifter who has done very very very well for himself simping for the right wing religious fundamentalist media. He ain't about to bite the hand that feeds him!
@@randomutubr222 I don't think that's the issue. If you pay good attention, which it was kind of a quick line so I'm not trying to be down on you if you didn't catch it, he states to Dawkins that he doesn't like the attempt to completely dismiss or toss out Christianity because the historical events it talks about didn't literally happen in a scientific way, which is what I kind of suspected. It makes sense. He believes Christianity centers around stories that are very helpful for humanity stepping forward and embracing good ethics and morality, a leap from the barbarism we once knew, but there's this problem we have as humans which is if we don't believe in the 'realness' of a thing, any motivation we can get from that thing will be more superficial than it otherwise would've been if we did believe in the realness of said thing. Because of that problem, he doesn't want to undercut the faith of any of his audience because that faith, whether based in objective scientific data or not, would do more harm than good by undercutting their moral foundations to the point that at best their morality would be more superficial and at worst they would regress back into barbarism or barbarian-like behavior just in more subtle ways that manifest themselves in more modern modes of being. So instead of people throwing spears at eachother, they might be more inclined to stab eachother in the back and that kind of thing, which funny enough could eventually lead to fullblown barbarism if a society embraced that kind of behavior to the utmost over a long enough period of time. Another problem is that Jordan is discussing the difference between objective scientific facts and narrative or moral values. His point is that there's not actually a difference, and the two are inherently entwined because without a value structure, we can't actually do things like science because doing science depends heavily on using a value structure of some kind to select which data is the most important or most relevant to that which you're researching at the moment. To put it simply, you can't claim that a value structure which is the foundation of science itself isn't objective, or else the whole idea of science crumbles. But that value structure is what the Bible is trying to abstract. Things like the truth will set you free, and that truth is a good pursuit. These aren't scientifically verifiable statements, but you can't do science without them.
"Isn't it crazy when you study the scriptures - within the year you're following Jesus?"
literally me 😂😂😂
I believe the day JP finally answers questions like the resurrection with a resounding yes will be the day he fully understands the power of submission to Christ
Thank you ruslan for making this conversation more my speed as I Listened to this video today and wasn’t able to fully catch all this
Observing Peterson's steady movement towards Christianity is like watching someone being born again in slow motion. His inevitable conversion is so fascinating to watch.
For me the only time these two men finally started speaking to each other was in the last 10 minutes where dawkins joined in the play of the conversation
Great example is how science has proven how fasting is revitalizing to our body, mind and spirit
When you said the part about being afraid to turn to god because of repeated mistakes bit..... That hit me. That hit me hard. Thats me. I pray so much to stop my alcoholism and promise to stop it all the time, that I feel God is probably ashamed of me. And in doing so I often shy away from praying for it because I feel at this point Ive worn it out. Ive promised to fix this shit so many times. But i fail. And that, in my eyes makes me a weak man. A man not worthy. Like I need to own this my self and then come back to GOD to show him that Ive put the work in and beat it my self.
@@MadBelle13 you are a wise man brother. Will be praying for you. The Lord be with you in your struggles 🙏🏾
You come to GOD because your weak. Don't go to GOD because you want to prove you are worthy or have done it, cause that will be presenting to HIM your own righteousness which HE considers filthy rags.
Go and keep reasoning with HIM as demanded my the scriptures and HE will take you on a cleansing journey. Come boldly before the throne of mercy and obtain mercy and grace. HE rules upon a throne of mercy.
Even addictions are within HIS scope of salvation.
Trust in HIS love and make sure to have a sincere heart.
Try too a little bit of fasting and some intense prayers and word study too. We West African christians like beating the body hard and pressing hard into GOD too 😂😅.
Try listening to Arome Osayi, Michael Orokpo, David Ogbueli. Maybe you can catch some tricks to help you on the topic.
Man this was an excellent exchange. I loved the way Jordan described his last points about the cross and resurrection connection to the snake image God commanded Moses to make in Exdous.❤
Who els is lighting a Big fat Cigar to this Ruslan Video?!
My conscience said no, but since Ruslan’s endorsement of tobacco now it’s lit 🔥 😂
Me
7:28 The serpent on the rod is connected to the crucifixion.
Uncle Screwtape is proud of the work he has done on Dawkins.
I Honestly need you to react to the final segment argument, because that's where they actually Agree and come together on something.
And I think it would he great to share how you could come together on the subject of the bible
Please do part 3 as well it shows what kind of people alex and dawkins are, and jordon talks aso about other biblical characters after this.
How does morale lessons leave you cold?!... thats crazy mr dawkins
When wisdom and intelligence collide.
10:48 Yes! He is going deep and trying to explain decades of study in 3 mins
Please link the breakdown video of the Mark stories you mentioned.
Woman w/ blood 12yrs & little girl 12 yrs ❤
I have become a symbolist christian, in large, because of Peterson's explanations of Christianity. He made me think a lot about the definition of God. That's where it all starts. Once you understand the definition of God, you can get real wisdom from the stories. But Dawkins and Peterson have fundamentally different definitions of God, that's why they tend to talk past each other.
The word God is probably the deepest word that we have. I think the real, actual definition of God is: the (spirit of the) Highest Good. (There are, in the different biblical stories, multiple different characterizations of God, but all these ‘sub-definitions’ fall under the overarching definition: the (spirit of the) Highest Good.) Now, here's the thing: (I think that) God isn’t a conscious being that literally exists; He isn’t some literal man watching us from another dimension. (I’m not a fundamentalist! I’m a symbolist.)
I think Peterson totally agrees with this. I would be happy if he said this to Dawkins, that he doesn’t see God as some conscious being that literally exists in some other dimension. (You could still believe symbolically in a higher Being, that’s what makes this so difficult, because the symbolic reality is still very real.) If Jordan would say this I think there is a chance that Dawkins would actually agree with him on religion; they would at least get something real out of the conversation.
JP brings up good point
Dawkins: ThAt DoEsnT imPreSS mE
Can someone explain to me the brief moment the Ruslan spoke on the woman with the issue with blood for 12 years being connected to the 12 year old young girl who was raised from the dead by Jesus in Mark.
There is an artistry that scientists such as Richard Dawkins have abandoned. Idk how he could do that
12:33 typical skeptic response when they don't understand it. Instead of admitting they are dumm, they will say what you said is nonsense or that it does not tickle their ears.
Their argument is that if they don't understand it or not entertained by it or not getting a shock factor, it does not mean they are dumm but means that the things they say is nonsense. Arrogance and lack of humility. The path to the Kingdom of God is indeed narrow.
Bingo! What you are talking about is similar to the incredulity fallacy. A certain religion does it regularly when trying to dispute the Trinity. Their logic is that since the concept of the Trinity does not logically make sense to them, it can’t be real
Arrogance and pride is basically the two basic foundations that build up the bulk of why such people like Richard Dawkins reject God. They act as if they understand everything, and that their finite understanding of things is THE correct way. Basically, they themselves by their own thought processes and behavior, treat themselves like they are gods.
The irony of you spelling "dumb" incorrectly not once, but twice, while trying to attribute it to someone else, is absolutely hilarious.
"Typical skeptic response when they don't understand it"... look in the mirror my guy.
Interesting commentary on the discussion.
Alex is well suited as he's done multiple well thought out critiques of Peterson's theses. I'm an agnostic and think I likely always will be, but these types of discussions are very interesting.
My understanding is that Peterson accepts biological evolution, including evolution of the human brain, and believes that whatever stories that persist have developed along humanity's evolutionary path, and these stories can relate truths that go back to the beginning of life, and somehow tie in to the universe. And this makes the stories "real", and worth promoting, turning inside out, and use as a basis for guiding us. O'Conner has convincingly used the Harry Potter story as exemplifying many of the same aspects Peterson has got out of Christianity.
Dawkins is wired differently than Peterson, and ranks the "reality" of things differently than Peterson does. He does not think specific details of stories should be believed because they ring true to adherants of whatever religion believe them. And he, personally is not interested in the stories for which faith is needed to believe, although he may be interested in questions such as "why is the scientific method best expressed in Western Culture with a Christian heritage (post-Enlightenment and utilizing maths based on a foundation of algebra developed first by the Babylonians).
Peterson feels his interpretation is valid and has lots of examples of how the stories explain concepts of right and wrong, and ways people should act in order to best go through there lives and contribute: if those stories morals can be explained in this context they are "real". Dawkins gets stuck on what can be proven in a mundne sense, using the tools of the Western scientific method, which neccessarily stops at a point Peterson blasts past in his investigation. I think it's fair to say Dawkins is OK saying "I don't know, and I can't know" to certain questions.:If that (I would say reality) is unacceptable, or perhaps not seen as a limiting factor (becausse I don't want to accuse Peterson of asserting he does not say he doesn't know about certain things, which he obviously acknowledges to be the case) then you can go further, as Peterson does. Anyway, I guess what I'm failingly trying to get at is I think both men are right in their own way, it's just that there intellectual interface with reality is different, although Peterson is personally more interesting to listen to than Dawkins as Dawkins doesn't arm-wave in the profound ways that Peterson does.
Both of these men seem to have one foot in and the other out, yet both unintentionally evangelizing.
This is just yet another example of the difference an atheist and, well, a Christian(we’ll just approximate that here for JP even if he continually dodges it). The ultimate scientist vs the ultimate philosopher. Both are just speaking two different languages to which one- Dawkins- just cannot appreciate.
Dawkins thinks SO strictly in terms of rigorous procedures and “logic” and has no appreciation for the abstract in the way Peterson or a theist does. Dawkins is definitely the sort of unbeliever who has his mind truly set. JP was dropping dimes and making very strong points. Even witnessing the resurrection himself wouldn’t be enough for him.
But does Peterson believe in the literal resurrection, or is he psychologizing it all for meaning without believing it ever happened?
This is exactly what i ask myself everytime i watch peterson talk about the bible
He was pinned down awhile back during an interview, I sadly don't remember who it was. He was literally asked "if there was a camera pointed towards the entrance to the tomb of christ the day of the resurrection, do you believe you would see him walk outside?" his answer was basically yes.
Where's part 1?
Why is part one on Ruslan KD?
Someone like Peterson must be crazy because nobody that smart could be sane..........
Ruslan I don't know what you did to your beard but you're lowkey looking like Mufasa🔥
The Dao proves the virgin birth
15:36 I think that’s the biggest difference here. Jordan is definitely more right brain where as he as able to conceptualize metaphors and the beauty of how the Bible still applies today. He of course still struggles to believe if it is complete true. (We know it is) Now on the other hand Richard Dawkins is clearly left brain. He deals only in facts. If you put them both in a museum, Jordan could appreciate the beauty and symbolism of the art but Richard wouldn’t be able to connect with it. In the same way, Richard is fascinated by modern science in a way that Jordan may or may not be interested. Overall, I see a correlation that those that are hyper intelligent and left brain have a hard time believing in God because “they can’t prove it”. Am I reaching here?
Richard Dawkins isn't really intelligent not even in his own scientific field. Seriously, I can't ever remember him making any good arguments. Even when making Scientific predictions, he is pretty awful at it. He is responsible for propagating the harmful myth upon science that most of DNA is junk.
Richard Dawkins isn't really intelligent not even in his own scientific field. Seriously, I can't ever remember him making any good arguments.
Even when making Scientific predictions, he is pretty awful at it. He is responsible for pr0pagating the harmful myth upon science that most of DNA is junk.
@@TheQuest4Peace yeah ur correct , the only way people like Dr Richard Dawkins can come to God is only through experiencing God's miracles in their life.
@TheQuest4Peace I wouldn't say hyper intelligent but I would say hyper logical.
That ad middle of jp cooking was extremely jarring!!!
Regardless there is a beginning to this design .
On earth , we have examples of creation/designs coming from creators/designers.
This might kind of enter the realm of "scifi" to him but i think richard can understand it , since he understands how far it could really go/how far its really gone. (On earth and the universe)
The mistake here is thinking science/math isn't involved. (Look at humans..and the entire universe to see that it is)
I think you guys are missing something. Dawkins and Peterson both think completely differently. I listened to this whole interview before seeing your videos on it. This obviously is not about "decimating" one another. This is two men who obviously consider each other intellectual peers having a truly humble conversation with one another.
While I love some of how y'all are breaking down, I'm disappointed at how you are also completely disrespecting a mind that is obviously completely different to your own. I honestly believe that Dr. Dawkins questions would've been more satisfactorily answered by Lee Strobel, to be honest. Please, please don't stoop to the low ground of making fun of someone in this way. As a fellow Christian, I am disappointed and disgusted that you would make fun of someone in this way.
Also, I honestly believe that Dr. Peterson still is not truly Christian. Pay close attention to how he answers these questions. He Himself is still unsure of faith. Dr. Dawkins appreciates hard science, Dr. Peterson appreciates a more fluid science, and neither are fully convinced of the facts of salvation. I feel that Dr. Peterson fears the truth and his own intellect and that is keeping him from submitting himself.
Or he is playing a specific role in a way that wont get him immediately written off by, say Dawkins' audience. Dawkin's audience is unreachable by fundamental dogmatism. They need to be shown religion is more than that in a way that won't turn them off before the conversation even starts. It's a very effective strategy even if it looks alien to the old religious caste.
I disagree with the whole “isn’t Christian/isn’t TRULY Christian” remark that is so often lobbed at Dr. Peterson. Haven’t you known anyone that wrestled with very fundamental Christian doctrine? According to his friend Jonathan Pageau, this is where he’s at. I don’t think it’s helpful when people reduce it to a binary of “you’re either in or you’re out,” it reeks of arrogance. None of us know what one another truly believes deep down, that’s known to God only.
@calebalbertson1690 I totally get that, but JP always talks like this. This way of talking, then, isn't just for Dawkins. I've never been convinced that he actually believes. I think he's still working it out for himself. Your thoughts?
@@stickmastergib3665 It's not my intention to be arrogant. I find people "working it out" to be entirely valid mode. This can last for years and even a lifetime for many people.
@@kkso3318 If you're a public figure in the contemporary online space, you can't context switch as easily as you're suggesting. If he were to come out boldly with clear declarations of faith to Piers Morgan, that will be posted on every r/atheism type board within 30 minutes, and that will completely poison all online wells.
Almost everything in the bible is borrowed from other literature - considering the bible was possibly originally written in Greek 🤔
It doesn't impress me because I have no clue what you just said😂😂😂
Ain't it crazy, how the cure of venom is venom😂😂. The thing that's gonna kill you is the very thing that saves 😂
Richard Dawkins seems to be trying to find himself in scripture when one of the main points of scripture is to help us learn more about God and his love for us in turn strengthening our relationship with The Lord.
This self-centered approach could lead to that coldness he feels. I pray he learns sooner than later.
It’s clear that don’t even want to listen to Dawkins’ arguments. At 12:36 he spoke for 2 seconds and you paused the video and played some childish soundboard. No care for what he was going to say. It’s so dishonest, disappointing really.
Loved this, but Dawkins is just ignorant and obstinate. I think he'd fail a 101 philosophy class, Ive never been impressed with anything from these new atheists.
i find it sad and funny why Christians like Jordan Peterson. He clearly doesn't believe in your religion. 😂
is it me or does dawkins just sound like a naive idiot here??? i feel like alex gets it but its just going over dawkins head
He doesn't care. He's not even trying to understand. Alex is more genuine
@@Mifuneerasmus Dawkins is just focused on pure scientific fact but peterson is trying to explain that the world that humans live in is governed by a "spiritual abstract" reality
Dawkins is the most extreme version of lacking faith. Jordan at least has the faith to get to believing in the true accounts and not just the metaphorical meanings.
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
_Christianity is slowly and surely crumbling_
We know
Dawkins absolutely obliterated Peterson,..I actually feel sorry for him
He did nothing.
No one won this debate
The atheists are winning at the start of any religious debate ...the claim god exists has been claimed for over 1800 years and never proven.... until you prove God exists...it doest ..theists have the burden of proof, no one was walking around denying gods until your lot made them up ...that's called logically factually, common sense and evidence based reality.... let me know when you can prove your imaginary friend..
@@aureum7479 The atheists are winning at the start of any religious debate ...the claim god exists has been claimed for over 1800 years and never proven.... until you prove God exists...it doest ..theists have the burden of proof, no one was walking around denying gods until your lot made them up ...that's called logically factually, common sense and evidence based reality.... let me know when you can prove your imaginary friend
By this same argument the Quran is true. Poets at the time thought the Quran had to be directly from God because no other literary creation was as perfect and as impressive.
It's not a stretch that the writer of John was an educated man, he wrote in good Greek and was obviously a sophisticated theologian. Would it be that hard for him to parallel the story of the bronze serpent with Jesus dying on the cross? I don't get how it's proof that the resurrection was real.