For full disclosure, the title of this video should be "Imagine TRYING to convince a biologist that dragons exist, but failing miserably, to the extent that the biologist and everyone else watching are embarrassed and don't know where to look".
Things I learned from this -Primates are the primary prey of eagles -That fire is a predatory animals -That dragons are real, even if they don't exist, because if they didn't there would be no predators -By using logical reasoning, the fact that he said edible apes must imply inedible apes -That dragons are a deep meme -That Richard Dawkins doesn't care about dragons. -That Jordan Peterson learned at least some of this from a book
I don't know what the hell is wrong with Peterson. Sometimes he makes sense, but other times he goes completely incoherent, it's like listening to a schizophrenic.
Sorry, I call bullshit on the last one. I highly doubt that book exists. He just said it to sound smarter. "I read about it in a book..." Yyyyyeah, rrrright.
@@PatrickSilent Akshually it's real and called An Instinct For Dragons by David E. Jones, it happens to be considered complete drivel by pretty much every academic that reviewed it, so... better?
@@GreatWarriorHercule I stand corrected, sir. Just checked and yes, the book actually exists, and by all accounts is a pile of utterly pseudoscientific bollocks. So, fitting for Peterson.
How religion and evolution are actually intertwined and are part of the same process, each affecting the other; it's quite interesting actually, Dawkins even caught on at the end and got interested.
I’m very fond of both men, but the hardcore JP cultists should remember: “If you meet the Buddha in the road kill him” Dawkins seems to be more precise in his thinking & language whereas Peterson’s stream of consciousness here constantly shifts context. It also helps to remember A=A.
I think the issue is that Dawkins is completely naturalistic. That worldview breaks down at the meme level. The issue with Peterson is that he only operates at the meme level and doesn’t want to commit to the “literal” truth of things. Is there a meme behind the idea of Christ? Yes. But at the end of the day, he either was a real person and that person either was or was both the son of God. He’s not literal enough for either Dawkins or true Christians.
On a literal level no, but on a symbolical level, a car rushing at you would cause the same fear and kill you like an ambushing predator. Water too, especially deep water, also "devours" people in some sense, just look at drowning incidents and how people disappear underwater, as if it went to it's "belly". Once again, couldn't the fear of deep water for example manifest similar to the fear of being devoured by something beyond your comprehension, like some huge predators that can gulp you entirelly in a single bite? Also, i don't think it's too much of a far stretch to call anything that will harm you and devour you for it's own unknown "sake" a predator of some sense, not in the literal but on the symbolical and metaphorical level. For example, we already use the term predator for Chomos, and they ain't eating the kids they prey upon.
Isn't it odd how someone can speak at length about the necessity for precise speech on one hand and flip to being as vague and abstract as possible on other topics when convenient? Abstract & religious thoughts have their place, but that place is not present in spheres such as biology. Thinking in terms of archetypes & gods is helpful in a soft science such as psychology. The realm of the chemist, botanist, or ecologist relies upon being as precise as possible. So we don't speak of dragons when we discuss bears and we set Jack & the Beanstalk aside when studying forests.
the evolution of the human cognition includes some fairly advanced capability of imagination and concept abstraction. this is a major part of our biology and can't easily be set aside. what can safely be set aside is how god becomes angry when we eat pork or have dirty thoughts about the wife next door, even though the pig or next-door husband might be very upset. it's just two very different categories of discussion
His argument isn’t that metaphor belongs in the lab. His argument is that metaphor is important. Dawkins does not think it is. Peterson explained to Dawkins that while Dawkins searches for facts, it is the metaphorical story that motivates him to do that. Peterson cares about what motivates people. Dawkins does not. That’s the difference, and the disconnect between these two.
@@LoganS91 Dawkins care about what motivates people, it's just a completely different realm of reasoning. Inspiration and motivation are an underproduct of brain chemistry and hormonal influences, drugs can motivate you affecting your brain chemistry and functioning making you see things that can make you start to believe that there's something beyond the physical realm starting your spiritual awakening, that's what ayahuasca and lsd drugs do. But, it doesn't matter what we believe in because there's a plethora of dead religions and gods, our biology stays and remains the same through history that's, unless we find a connection between those two that can make us evolve biologically speaking.
@@bioshin Biology has little to say about where your own Will operates. You can alter your own brain chemistry by absorbing new ideas, and a new story about how you see the world. Both aspects, spiritual and physical are at work. You’re not a victim of your chemistry, you’re a victim of the stories you believe.
@@bioshin Biology has little to say about where your own Will operates. You can alter your own brain chemistry by absorbing new ideas, and a new story about how you see the world. Both aspects, spiritual and physical are at work. You’re not a victim of your chemistry, you’re a victim of the stories you believe.
Jordan here is basically saying that creations of the human mind can be considered a reality because they are a symbol that exist/are real in our brains and reflect themselve on art, story, invented history etc.... The mind in this aspect can create reality even its a false-reality by Hawkins terms. But Peterson didnt explain it well. He should have said its not archealogically real but since it lives in our minds it has a proportion of reality to it.
He in fact is doing a terrible job of conveying his intended meaning. I also have no context on this conversation but i dont even know why he is trying to make the point he is trying to. Like what is the actual point hes trying to get at?
@@kaminachos5129 I think he must be doing drugs again. No, it's not a joke. He's had an addiction problem. He's so far out in left field here, it seems quite plausible.
03:55 Peterson making the pro-trans rights argument for the relevant definition of the word 'woman' (biologic vs social relevance) all by himself. How charming.
Dear Jordan, The concept of cement in relation to bricks is VERY import within the context of construction, while at the same time this concept is completely useless within the context cooking. I'll leave it there.
I have a buddy who is brilliant at telling stories, always admired that about him. We could walk across the street to buy a pack of cigarettes, come back, and he could talk for 10 minutes to the group about what I had no idea was the epic adventure we just survived. He would be intolerable in a discussion like this, I feel for Dawkins here. Okay, we agree that dragons aren’t real though, right? And that you could have just as easily made the same point without trying to make the imaginary relevant?
The dragon is actually a perfect analogy for this meeting of minds. This felt a little bit like a desperate plea for JP’s “soft” science to be validated by Dawkins’ “hard” science. One of them is slaying lions and bears that endanger the group, the other is off chasing his own imagination.
In a certain way, that doesn’t really matter. Peterson expounds much more deeply on the story of the Bible, than someone who believes in Jesus and would only argue about Christ’s biology, or very surface level things. Honestly, I don’t appreciate the way Dawkins treats these stories as if they have no effect on the real world. He seems to only be interested in biology. The problem is, humans are the only creatures that tell stories and integrate the meanings of them into our lives. If we had nothing to do with stories, if all we were were simply biological creatures, not connected in any way to these deeper truths, then we would be no different than a dog who goes about his biological instincts, never concerned with stories, nor know what they are. But we are not dogs, we are man. And man, whether Dawkins admits it or not, seeks something more profound.
Yea be we all know that already, it's all symbolic in his view and that's not that interesting, what's interesting is what his views are, his exploration of the symbolism.
Jordan talks about dragons as if it's something profound. Archetypes have been known about since Jung, every good writer employs them all the time. A better example than dragon would be: magician --> scientist. (runes --> math, spells --> correct questions) Jester --> A pleasure seeking hedonist or a divine primal figure because of carefree nature. (rock stars, carefree happy leadership(Trump)) Mother --> Nurturing, kind woman. Maiden --> Full of life, fit beautiful, also taps into (jester) because she's carefree. Not yet corrupted which is why some people worships her. Warrior ---> Men that protects women and children. (Protector) Hero ---> Typically a person that goes on a journey to evolve into one of the archetypes. He has to challenge the (dragon), the predator, his fears in order to do this. Sage/father ---> Old wise spiritual person that guides the young. Then there are all the fallen versions of all these archetypes like: Witch --> woman that rejects motherhood. Troll --> Foreign man that lusts for gold and children. Conquering warrior --> Doesn't protect, but conquers. Failing jester ---> A loser. Evil magician ---> Not interested in knowledge but power and influence from it. Bad maiden ---> The early tomboy feminist. Typically was abused by her daddy at some point, or never had a dad. Evil sage/father ---> Usually mentally ill psychopaths, closest real life equivalent to satan. There are a lot of old evil men in movies, Hannibal Lecter, Jigsaw etc. I'm sure Jordan could talk about this for 9 hours. But a couple of paragraphs is really all that's required. He's right though that sacrifices always have to be made in order to grow as a person. In order to become a mother the maiden has to sacrifice her time, innocence and energy for the child. In order to become a magician the man has to sacrifice his stupidity and his time to gain knowledge. In order to become a warrior you have got to be willing to die for the women and children. In order to become a jester you've got to really confront your fears because being carefree can be really dangerous. In order to become a sage/father you've got to accept death. That's in part why Jesus, Odin and Heracles stories are so profound. Also contemporary stories like Gandalf dying, Obi Wan dying etc. Then there's also archetypal projection, people projecting their trauma on the archetypes. That explains all perverted behavior in pornography. If you've had a problem with daddy, you might want to see daddy abused or share your trauma with him in the form of pain. If you never had a girlfriend and they all laughed at you, you're going to want to degrade them. Then there's of course also anima/animus which confuses people. The ultimate modern example of that are transgender people. They've no idea what's up or down.
@@LoganS91 Might be profound to people that don't know about it. Richard's probably like, yeah I'm 80 years old I knew about this when I was 22. It's only an aha moment for people that never heard of it. And I'd wager that's true of a lot of things. Wait until you find out about music theory, prose theory, programming theory and painting theory. Archetypes are most relevant in storytelling, if you know these patterns you can sneak them in anywhere in any context. And you'll also be able to understand why a movie or book appeals to you. You'll be like, oh yeah Hannibal is the father, clarice is the bad maiden that was traumatized by her daddy killing lambs. The lamb is the child her next form (mother) should care for. She projects her own father onto Hannibal. Or you'll be like. Oh yeah in Alien, Ripley is the mother archetype that's why a woman in an action role works. Because she's a motherly presence in a group of unruly boys warning them about the predator that threatens to IMPREGNATE her (the mother). Or you'll be like, oh yeah the carefree jester that became a lover archetype at the start of the titanic. Then took on the role of a warrior by sacrificing himself for the maiden. Which is in contrast to the cowardly failed warrior that got on a boat before the women and the children. And it's also easy to spot when the writers of a story hasn't got a clue what they're doing or intentionally invert the archetypes because they're consumed by their anima/animus. (leftism and toxic witchy femininity). If anyone would benefit from knowing about the archetype it's feminine men and leftists. They're really damaged goods that needs repairing.
> Jordan talks about dragons as if it's something profound. No, he talks as if it's an important critical foundation that's being lost, which is his point. Try listening instead of projecting.
@@Gnaritas42 His point isn't as important as my point which is, it's only lost on people like you. A lot of people know this stuff already, Dawkins being one of them. And if his intention is to spread knowledge about the dragon in a poetic self help book way, go face the dragon boy! He should respect peoples time and cover every archetype instead of only, mother/child, dragon and sacrifice. Which was loosely defined anyway. The troll and witch are way more relevant today. Are you a troll or a witch, he should be asking people that, especially immigrants and leftist women.
Dragons represent Dangers (potential &/or real). It isn't limited to predators. Danger can come in the form of natural disasters, consequences of poor decisions, falling into open waters, etc... Dawkins saying he's interested in 'facts' exhibits his bad faith in discussing ideas because it might damage his reputation or brand.
I think Dawkins just wanted Peterson to stop being incoherent and start communicating clearly. It's very frustrating when you want to discuss something clearly defined and specific and the other person starts rambling, throwing parables at you, misusing concepts and making the discussion meaningless.
Just a quick reminder to you as a reader: UA-cams algorithm also sorts your comment's and shows you the kind of responses it thinks you might engage with most: don't take your bubble for granted - things are not just as simple as the short you just saw or the comments you just read. Theres more Nuance in this world than this. I wish you all the best - May this comment actually reach you!
Its funny seeing Dawkins now after watching him for years and coming up against something like JP; Dawkins has a real trouble, or resistance with the utility/value of abstraction and archetypal levels of analysis. Its almost as if they're becoming coldy logical and vulcan-like. Cool, we can articulate beyond the story now in a cold rational fact way, but before we could, for a long long time, we treated the sun as a God, we treated other things as Gods and dangers in abstract iconography and that got us to a fairly important point, and helped us survive. Thats incredibly deeply ingrained and I don't think Dawkins can quite grasp how important realising that really is. One thing I appreciate about watching Peterson's stuff is applying different lenses to different things or different levels of resolution even to the point of religion or rather spirituality being a valuable scientific lense when cold hard fact fails or has holes.
What you're saying would make sense if this were a conference about fairy tales. Then what you call Dawkins's "trouble" (in reality his total lack of interest) in JP's word salads would indeed be a drawback. But this isn't a conference about fairy tales. It's a discussion about a book that millions of people think is literally true and that supposedly contains actual revelations about an actual supernatural being that actually exists. JP is not saying, "look, of course the Bible is a work of fiction", he's claiming that its central claims - in particular Jesus's resurrection from the dead - are actual historical truths. In that context, Dawkins's "cold and vulcan-like" (aka grown-up and rational) arguments are much more relevant than JP's vague evasions.
Dawkins … he’s like a guy who spends his time running around telling everyone that Father Christmas is not real. If he’s not real then why bother with it.
Dawkins just wanted to do gotcha bullshit and wasn't interested in finding common ground or learning anything, but by the end, he accidently did learn something and conceded that jbp had raised an interesting point that memes can become archetypes inbedded into our DNA through Baldwin sexual selection mechanics. People kept griefing peterson over dodging questions, but Dawkins did an equal amount of intentional obfuscation because he didn't want to accidentally agree to a higher power organizing the cosmic order or humans being sculpted by metaphysical forces.
There was a really interesting video I saw years ago with Neil Degrasse Tyson titled along the lines of "Why I don't want God in the Science Lab" or something to that effect. Part of his arguement was that while the quest for divine truth was an important driver in why scientists of ages past pursued their goals, in the end if they hit a stumbling block, they would go "oh well, that must be God doing that" and give up, only for someone to pick up their work and continue or finish it 300 years later. It seems here Dawkins is now doing some inverse of that, where he's now closing himself off to the call of the divine in order to pull him on his quest for knowledge, which seems limiting, and I think the point being demostrated here by JP supports how valuable that quest for divinity or divine knowledge and truth was helpful to scientists of ages past. Now you could argue that those truths are out there wether we impress upon it some divine quest or not, which is true, but our discovery of them is often driven by a search for a higher truth, not just a higher factual understanding. I think the vid is particularly frustrating as it seems to be either a massive blindspot for Dawkins or he's far too practiced with his usual defense of "well I just deal in reality" and is going into a kind of defensive mode.
I love that Dawkins cannot grasp the abstract concept of dragons, yet he rocks a DNA strand right there on his tie. It's just a perfect representation of how very differently people's brains operate.
Of course he understands the concept of a dragon. When you say the “biology of a dragon” its ridiculous. It has no biological characteristics. Biological characteristics are established through biological science which is impossible since It’s mythology.
well, probably because he's passionate about the point he is trying to make and he knows Dawkins is a fairly intelligent guy that doesn't get the point. it can be annoying trying to get a point across to someone and only have it hit a wall ya know?
we would have benefited with a fuller understanding by hearing Dawkins' thoughts after the "yes, yes". I think we are fighting a civilizational war, and Peterson is all-in. I'm on that team. But, I watched this to hear Dawkins' views.
It's so frustrating talking to people like that. Can't clearly define what he means, jumps from topic to topic incoherently, the discussion is going nowhere and 90% of the time it's completely unclear what the hell is even being dicussed.
So often I find myself wishing I could give people like Dawkins who shrug off so many things so flippantly the world in which they think they want. He wants a world where facts and materialistic reality are at the pinnacle of morality. I wonder how long it would take him before he got bored. Often times people think they want something without realizing such a thing may very well be their own personal hell.
@@undercoveragent9889 The fact is that you don’t live your life as if only facts matter. You’re made of matter and consciousness will end when you die. Why do anything if you’re going to die one day? Why care what “impact” you make on the world? And the impact you make won’t even be physically measurable. The lasting impacts that people make are their example or memories they created. We don’t live lives driven by facts, and it’s inappropriate to think that “facts” and “wishful thinking” are the only two options in how to perceive the world.
I think these two men are dismissive of each other. Dawkins makes valid points about finding truth through scientific means...there's no question about that. And JP is arguing for the pragmatism of metaphorical stories and symbols. I don't think he's saying that stories are true, I think he's saying that stories have as much value as science in a different way in the fact they do emit ideas and resolutions.
The dragon most importantly transcends time. No matter what culture you emerge in the notion of a dragon innately resonates. Symbolic descriptions of reality are cross cultural and thats what makes them ultimately important and inevitable.
@@MsRuell No. they emphasize different aspects of the same thing; water, fertility, and chaos. You say “different cultures” so casually, neglecting the importance of the fact that it naturally emerges cross culturally.
I think this is why so many people have trouble understanding JP. to most people, especially the new atheist types, "real" simply meaning exists within physical reality. Jordan views "real" as anything that conveys truth, metaphors, architypes, stories, they all convey some deeper truth about life, and are therefor just as "real" as the phone in your hand.
@jonnyxquest thats fine. But that's not what they asked. They asked about flying lizards that breathed fire. Not the metaphor for danger. They were specific. I'm a JP fan. I'm a Christian. But we need to stop with a bait and switch. Try saying this, dragon never ment flying lizard that breathes fire ,it means great lizard. Which it does. Well "terrible lizard". Atheists impose the " flying lizard that breathes fire " on purpose to make it more disbelievable because the bible never describes a fling lizard that breathes fire. It describes 2 what I would call dinosaur/dragon. And it describes them in detail. Neither fly. And if I'm correct the behemoth is the only "real" dinosaur described while the leviathan I believe was a metaphor for Israel's enemies and how God controls the enemies of Isreal.
He's giving you the conceptualization of a biological link between psychopathy and conciousness. People look at religious people as nuts. He's explaining how people who made the "fairy tale" might have been doing so in a way that we haven't been understanding. He's probably worked up because its a mix of realization of and its possibilities, feeling of intelligent people not trying to actually conceptualize so he feels like its something to discuss and think through together rather than carry all the burden, then just the natural rush and high one gets getting the brain ticking so good. Conceptualizing certain things kinda disassociates the person while they do it so a mild lack of self because the brain naturally does that to think deeply. Also the stress working the brain out in a different kinda way causes. Honestly when you think about it and i get to see it in another it makes sense how fighting and committing crime is one of the biggest causes of our species development. All i gotta say is if worse comes i have my word on them already fr. Preservation of certain things is mine n they who I'd want to preserve it.
Hey...comment dweller...let's play a game! I fed ChatGPT the prompt "Write me a paragraph in the style of a pretentious know-it-all saying a bunch of unconnected nonsense to sound smart. Excessive use of long words and technical philosophy jargon is encouraged". See how many JP-isms you can find and reply with your score! "Ah, the ontological quandaries of existential phenomenology juxtaposed with the epistemic limitations inherent in postmodern discourse unveil a labyrinthine tapestry of semiotic interplay. One must ponder the hegemony of cultural relativism as it perturbs the epistemological foundations of our collective understanding, rendering the binary constructs of true and false mere ephemeral illusions. Indeed, the teleological implications of this dialectical synthesis evoke a profound contemplation of the Cartesian cogito vis-à-vis the ineffable nuances of intersubjectivity. In this grandiloquent milieu, we are inexorably compelled to interrogate the metaphysical underpinnings of authenticity, whilst navigating the serpentine intricacies of hyperreality that permeate contemporary society. Thus, one might assert with profound gravitas that the synthesis of these multifarious paradigms culminates in a paradigmatic shift towards an increasingly nebulous epistemology."
Look this is the same kind of stuff that Peterson did during that very first Sam Harris appearance all those years ago. He has a completely baffling and incoherent notion of 'truth' and reality.
I heard that in your dreams you cannot dream of someone's face that you have not seen. Since dragons aren't obviously real, it interesting how much society has found a identity of a dragon in amalgamation and utilized it in a very specific story, while repeating it. Therefore humans as a collective wouldn't even bring the story of the dragon into existence and use it as reference of a story (extracting meaning). If everything was a tangible or something that you can access physically. That way is a one sided approach, nothing can be in human understanding if it's not on this earth, which really falls flat, because inventions are always the unknown, not known. The story of the dragon is just the representation to the natural path humans all follow. This massive feat of a dragon that is Infront of you, but even though this great beast is in front of you, your proclivity will be to use all of your will power and ability to slay the dragon (conquering your fears and turning into courage) and when doing so, you will have the greatest reward on the other side once you triumph.
Drawing the distinction between ignorance and stupidity, Peterson is the most stupid person I've come across in a long time. Sadly, religion does that to people.
it is important that dragons in concept do exist because this is a part of human intelligence. a human with the inability to grasp these kind of concepts is actually categorized as "autistic" and is considered disabled. in English stories,, the "wolf" was usually the predator. imagination and abstract thought are considered normal and a part of intelligence. that is why JP as a psychologist is so concern. Has Dawkins been tested for autism?
Lots of those in the sciences are autistic, and I was thinking similar about Dawkin's when he so aggressively said he only cares about facts. That's a very autistic view, even for us hardcore science types, human behavior and the brain's development is super interesting and Dawkin's literally couldn't care less until... evolution got pull it. Evolution is Dawkin's trains. Everything Jordon was saying was very interesting to any intelligent person that isn't autistically stuck to one topic.
Dawkins playing the knieve fool. As if he doesn't know about the significance of symbolic and mythological patterns running our lives. As if he doesn'tknow about the dragon bloodlines, cmon.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, unless you become as children, you will in no way enter God's Kingdom. This conversation is silly and futile. It can produce no eternal fruit.
That statement is pointing to revitalizing curiosity and ignorance, so that new ideas can be grasped. It doesn’t mean to be dull.. “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.” Experts are not curious, or interested in new ideas. They cling to their own, preventing them from arriving to the Kingdom. Key of knowledge may equal curiousity .
In order to even have opinions you have to learn about many topics. People do so by watching others who have spent a lot of time researching a particular area. Only then can you start thinking for yourself. Only idiots avoid learning.
For full disclosure, the title of this video should be "Imagine TRYING to convince a biologist that dragons exist, but failing miserably, to the extent that the biologist and everyone else watching are embarrassed and don't know where to look".
Things I learned from this
-Primates are the primary prey of eagles
-That fire is a predatory animals
-That dragons are real, even if they don't exist, because if they didn't there would be no predators
-By using logical reasoning, the fact that he said edible apes must imply inedible apes
-That dragons are a deep meme
-That Richard Dawkins doesn't care about dragons.
-That Jordan Peterson learned at least some of this from a book
I don't know what the hell is wrong with Peterson. Sometimes he makes sense, but other times he goes completely incoherent, it's like listening to a schizophrenic.
Sorry, I call bullshit on the last one. I highly doubt that book exists. He just said it to sound smarter. "I read about it in a book..." Yyyyyeah, rrrright.
@@PatrickSilent Akshually it's real and called An Instinct For Dragons by David E. Jones, it happens to be considered complete drivel by pretty much every academic that reviewed it, so... better?
@@GreatWarriorHercule I stand corrected, sir. Just checked and yes, the book actually exists, and by all accounts is a pile of utterly pseudoscientific bollocks. So, fitting for Peterson.
You forgot an important one… Lions are dragons. I wish I made that one up.
Jordan Peterson: You cannot become a woman!
Also Jordan Peterson: Dragons exist!
What the fuck is Jordan talking about 😂
How religion and evolution are actually intertwined and are part of the same process, each affecting the other; it's quite interesting actually, Dawkins even caught on at the end and got interested.
"The dragon's a meme, the dragon's a meme! It's a deep meme 😥" - J Peterson
@@Gnaritas42😂😂😂😂😂😂
- is fire a predator?
- no
-well, it's complicated!
Jordan Peterson is like a fake martial arts master and his fans are the students who pretend his techniques are working on them.
indeed
😂😂😂 the sheer accuracy 😂 💀 😂
Totally accurate.
I’m starting to wonder if he has fans in the wild left and they ain’t just all bots
I have never heard this benzo fiend described in a more perfect way, you've nailed it
I have no idea what the person in grey suit with blue tie talks about, but I celebrate Richard’s patience.
I’m very fond of both men, but the hardcore JP cultists should remember: “If you meet the Buddha in the road kill him” Dawkins seems to be more precise in his thinking & language whereas Peterson’s stream of consciousness here constantly shifts context. It also helps to remember A=A.
Full video on Peterson's UA-cam account for those wondering
Nobody should ever go to that account.
@@paintspot1509 Millions of people have but ok
I am interested in Dawkins' reply beyond the brief"yes, yes" that was the cut-off point in the video.
I think the issue is that Dawkins is completely naturalistic. That worldview breaks down at the meme level.
The issue with Peterson is that he only operates at the meme level and doesn’t want to commit to the “literal” truth of things.
Is there a meme behind the idea of Christ? Yes. But at the end of the day, he either was a real person and that person either was or was both the son of God.
He’s not literal enough for either Dawkins or true Christians.
@@christhetanman2639 Memes are not metaphors.
Jordan peterson is good with vocabulary, not substance 😂
mid vernacular.
TIL that anything that can potentially kill you is a predator. Cars? Predators. Water? Predator. Flight of stairs? Predator.
On a literal level no, but on a symbolical level, a car rushing at you would cause the same fear and kill you like an ambushing predator. Water too, especially deep water, also "devours" people in some sense, just look at drowning incidents and how people disappear underwater, as if it went to it's "belly". Once again, couldn't the fear of deep water for example manifest similar to the fear of being devoured by something beyond your comprehension, like some huge predators that can gulp you entirelly in a single bite?
Also, i don't think it's too much of a far stretch to call anything that will harm you and devour you for it's own unknown "sake" a predator of some sense, not in the literal but on the symbolical and metaphorical level. For example, we already use the term predator for Chomos, and they ain't eating the kids they prey upon.
Isn't it odd how someone can speak at length about the necessity for precise speech on one hand and flip to being as vague and abstract as possible on other topics when convenient?
Abstract & religious thoughts have their place, but that place is not present in spheres such as biology. Thinking in terms of archetypes & gods is helpful in a soft science such as psychology. The realm of the chemist, botanist, or ecologist relies upon being as precise as possible. So we don't speak of dragons when we discuss bears and we set Jack & the Beanstalk aside when studying forests.
the evolution of the human cognition includes some fairly advanced capability of imagination and concept abstraction. this is a major part of our biology and can't easily be set aside. what can safely be set aside is how god becomes angry when we eat pork or have dirty thoughts about the wife next door, even though the pig or next-door husband might be very upset.
it's just two very different categories of discussion
His argument isn’t that metaphor belongs in the lab. His argument is that metaphor is important. Dawkins does not think it is. Peterson explained to Dawkins that while Dawkins searches for facts, it is the metaphorical story that motivates him to do that. Peterson cares about what motivates people. Dawkins does not. That’s the difference, and the disconnect between these two.
@@LoganS91 Dawkins care about what motivates people, it's just a completely different realm of reasoning. Inspiration and motivation are an underproduct of brain chemistry and hormonal influences, drugs can motivate you affecting your brain chemistry and functioning making you see things that can make you start to believe that there's something beyond the physical realm starting your spiritual awakening, that's what ayahuasca and lsd drugs do. But, it doesn't matter what we believe in because there's a plethora of dead religions and gods, our biology stays and remains the same through history that's, unless we find a connection between those two that can make us evolve biologically speaking.
@@bioshin Biology has little to say about where your own Will operates. You can alter your own brain chemistry by absorbing new ideas, and a new story about how you see the world. Both aspects, spiritual and physical are at work. You’re not a victim of your chemistry, you’re a victim of the stories you believe.
@@bioshin Biology has little to say about where your own Will operates. You can alter your own brain chemistry by absorbing new ideas, and a new story about how you see the world. Both aspects, spiritual and physical are at work. You’re not a victim of your chemistry, you’re a victim of the stories you believe.
His suit isn't pinstripes but a repetition of the phrase "clean your room." Madness.
Both of these dudes are tools but JP is just rambling.
Jordan here is basically saying that creations of the human mind can be considered a reality because they are a symbol that exist/are real in our brains and reflect themselve on art, story, invented history etc....
The mind in this aspect can create reality even its a false-reality by Hawkins terms.
But Peterson didnt explain it well. He should have said its not archealogically real but since it lives in our minds it has a proportion of reality to it.
If you have to explain it, how can you be sure it's what he's thinking?
He in fact is doing a terrible job of conveying his intended meaning. I also have no context on this conversation but i dont even know why he is trying to make the point he is trying to. Like what is the actual point hes trying to get at?
@@kaminachos5129 I think he must be doing drugs again. No, it's not a joke. He's had an addiction problem. He's so far out in left field here, it seems quite plausible.
Imagine being this lost in the sauce
03:55 Peterson making the pro-trans rights argument for the relevant definition of the word 'woman' (biologic vs social relevance) all by himself. How charming.
CONVINCING A BIOLOGIST THAT DRAGONS EXIST ❎
CONVINCING AN AUTHOR THAT DRAGONS DOESN'T EXIST ❎
Dear Jordan, The concept of cement in relation to bricks is VERY import within the context of construction, while at the same time this concept is completely useless within the context cooking. I'll leave it there.
But the principle is the same if you’re building a cake and you need a substance to cement parts of food to build a structure like a cake.
I have a buddy who is brilliant at telling stories, always admired that about him. We could walk across the street to buy a pack of cigarettes, come back, and he could talk for 10 minutes to the group about what I had no idea was the epic adventure we just survived. He would be intolerable in a discussion like this, I feel for Dawkins here. Okay, we agree that dragons aren’t real though, right? And that you could have just as easily made the same point without trying to make the imaginary relevant?
The dragon is actually a perfect analogy for this meeting of minds. This felt a little bit like a desperate plea for JP’s “soft” science to be validated by Dawkins’ “hard” science. One of them is slaying lions and bears that endanger the group, the other is off chasing his own imagination.
A giant evil berserker clown with a long face and jaw that laughs as it stalks the city streets at night is much scarier than a dragon
Bro's gonna start crying again...
Hehe 😂 I love how this is about Dawkins while everyone just ignores that Peterson just admitted again that he doesn’t believe in Jesus 😂
In a certain way, that doesn’t really matter. Peterson expounds much more deeply on the story of the Bible, than someone who believes in Jesus and would only argue about Christ’s biology, or very surface level things.
Honestly, I don’t appreciate the way Dawkins treats these stories as if they have no effect on the real world. He seems to only be interested in biology. The problem is, humans are the only creatures that tell stories and integrate the meanings of them into our lives. If we had nothing to do with stories, if all we were were simply biological creatures, not connected in any way to these deeper truths, then we would be no different than a dog who goes about his biological instincts, never concerned with stories, nor know what they are. But we are not dogs, we are man. And man, whether Dawkins admits it or not, seeks something more profound.
Yea be we all know that already, it's all symbolic in his view and that's not that interesting, what's interesting is what his views are, his exploration of the symbolism.
Jordan talks about dragons as if it's something profound.
Archetypes have been known about since Jung, every good writer employs them all the time.
A better example than dragon would be:
magician --> scientist. (runes --> math, spells --> correct questions)
Jester --> A pleasure seeking hedonist or a divine primal figure because of carefree nature. (rock stars, carefree happy leadership(Trump))
Mother --> Nurturing, kind woman.
Maiden --> Full of life, fit beautiful, also taps into (jester) because she's carefree. Not yet corrupted which is why some people worships her.
Warrior ---> Men that protects women and children. (Protector)
Hero ---> Typically a person that goes on a journey to evolve into one of the archetypes. He has to challenge the (dragon), the predator, his fears in order to do this.
Sage/father ---> Old wise spiritual person that guides the young.
Then there are all the fallen versions of all these archetypes like:
Witch --> woman that rejects motherhood.
Troll --> Foreign man that lusts for gold and children.
Conquering warrior --> Doesn't protect, but conquers.
Failing jester ---> A loser.
Evil magician ---> Not interested in knowledge but power and influence from it.
Bad maiden ---> The early tomboy feminist. Typically was abused by her daddy at some point, or never had a dad.
Evil sage/father ---> Usually mentally ill psychopaths, closest real life equivalent to satan. There are a lot of old evil men in movies, Hannibal Lecter, Jigsaw etc.
I'm sure Jordan could talk about this for 9 hours. But a couple of paragraphs is really all that's required. He's right though that sacrifices always have to be made in order to grow as a person.
In order to become a mother the maiden has to sacrifice her time, innocence and energy for the child.
In order to become a magician the man has to sacrifice his stupidity and his time to gain knowledge.
In order to become a warrior you have got to be willing to die for the women and children.
In order to become a jester you've got to really confront your fears because being carefree can be really dangerous.
In order to become a sage/father you've got to accept death. That's in part why Jesus, Odin and Heracles stories are so profound. Also contemporary stories like Gandalf dying, Obi Wan dying etc.
Then there's also archetypal projection, people projecting their trauma on the archetypes. That explains all perverted behavior in pornography. If you've had a problem with daddy, you might want to see daddy abused or share your trauma with him in the form of pain. If you never had a girlfriend and they all laughed at you, you're going to want to degrade them. Then there's of course also anima/animus which confuses people. The ultimate modern example of that are transgender people. They've no idea what's up or down.
It is profound. It’s just that people take for granted what was originally profound.
@@LoganS91 It's bollox; the kind of bollox that greases the wheels of the Military Industrial Complex, Peterson's puppet-masters.
@@LoganS91 Might be profound to people that don't know about it. Richard's probably like, yeah I'm 80 years old I knew about this when I was 22. It's only an aha moment for people that never heard of it. And I'd wager that's true of a lot of things.
Wait until you find out about music theory, prose theory, programming theory and painting theory. Archetypes are most relevant in storytelling, if you know these patterns you can sneak them in anywhere in any context. And you'll also be able to understand why a movie or book appeals to you.
You'll be like, oh yeah Hannibal is the father, clarice is the bad maiden that was traumatized by her daddy killing lambs. The lamb is the child her next form (mother) should care for. She projects her own father onto Hannibal. Or you'll be like.
Oh yeah in Alien, Ripley is the mother archetype that's why a woman in an action role works. Because she's a motherly presence in a group of unruly boys warning them about the predator that threatens to IMPREGNATE her (the mother).
Or you'll be like, oh yeah the carefree jester that became a lover archetype at the start of the titanic. Then took on the role of a warrior by sacrificing himself for the maiden. Which is in contrast to the cowardly failed warrior that got on a boat before the women and the children.
And it's also easy to spot when the writers of a story hasn't got a clue what they're doing or intentionally invert the archetypes because they're consumed by their anima/animus. (leftism and toxic witchy femininity). If anyone would benefit from knowing about the archetype it's feminine men and leftists. They're really damaged goods that needs repairing.
> Jordan talks about dragons as if it's something profound.
No, he talks as if it's an important critical foundation that's being lost, which is his point. Try listening instead of projecting.
@@Gnaritas42 His point isn't as important as my point which is, it's only lost on people like you. A lot of people know this stuff already, Dawkins being one of them.
And if his intention is to spread knowledge about the dragon in a poetic self help book way, go face the dragon boy! He should respect peoples time and cover every archetype instead of only, mother/child, dragon and sacrifice. Which was loosely defined anyway.
The troll and witch are way more relevant today. Are you a troll or a witch, he should be asking people that, especially immigrants and leftist women.
This is exactly the environment where the "new" Peterson doesn't do well in.
He looked manic and confused
@@DMurph-y7t *is
this guy is hopelessly deceptive
Dragons represent Dangers (potential &/or real).
It isn't limited to predators. Danger can come in the form of natural disasters, consequences of poor decisions, falling into open waters, etc...
Dawkins saying he's interested in 'facts' exhibits his bad faith in discussing ideas because it might damage his reputation or brand.
I think Dawkins just wanted Peterson to stop being incoherent and start communicating clearly. It's very frustrating when you want to discuss something clearly defined and specific and the other person starts rambling, throwing parables at you, misusing concepts and making the discussion meaningless.
Just a quick reminder to you as a reader: UA-cams algorithm also sorts your comment's and shows you the kind of responses it thinks you might engage with most: don't take your bubble for granted - things are not just as simple as the short you just saw or the comments you just read. Theres more Nuance in this world than this. I wish you all the best - May this comment actually reach you!
Its funny seeing Dawkins now after watching him for years and coming up against something like JP; Dawkins has a real trouble, or resistance with the utility/value of abstraction and archetypal levels of analysis. Its almost as if they're becoming coldy logical and vulcan-like. Cool, we can articulate beyond the story now in a cold rational fact way, but before we could, for a long long time, we treated the sun as a God, we treated other things as Gods and dangers in abstract iconography and that got us to a fairly important point, and helped us survive. Thats incredibly deeply ingrained and I don't think Dawkins can quite grasp how important realising that really is. One thing I appreciate about watching Peterson's stuff is applying different lenses to different things or different levels of resolution even to the point of religion or rather spirituality being a valuable scientific lense when cold hard fact fails or has holes.
Is there really utility in things our brains tend towards?
What you're saying would make sense if this were a conference about fairy tales. Then what you call Dawkins's "trouble" (in reality his total lack of interest) in JP's word salads would indeed be a drawback. But this isn't a conference about fairy tales. It's a discussion about a book that millions of people think is literally true and that supposedly contains actual revelations about an actual supernatural being that actually exists. JP is not saying, "look, of course the Bible is a work of fiction", he's claiming that its central claims - in particular Jesus's resurrection from the dead - are actual historical truths. In that context, Dawkins's "cold and vulcan-like" (aka grown-up and rational) arguments are much more relevant than JP's vague evasions.
Dawkins … he’s like a guy who spends his time running around telling everyone that Father Christmas is not real. If he’s not real then why bother with it.
Because there's the potential for people to perform a bad actions, based on the misguided idea of the existence of Father Christmas, let's say.
Because stupid people say it is real.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Dawkins just wanted to do gotcha bullshit and wasn't interested in finding common ground or learning anything, but by the end, he accidently did learn something and conceded that jbp had raised an interesting point that memes can become archetypes inbedded into our DNA through Baldwin sexual selection mechanics. People kept griefing peterson over dodging questions, but Dawkins did an equal amount of intentional obfuscation because he didn't want to accidentally agree to a higher power organizing the cosmic order or humans being sculpted by metaphysical forces.
There was a really interesting video I saw years ago with Neil Degrasse Tyson titled along the lines of "Why I don't want God in the Science Lab" or something to that effect. Part of his arguement was that while the quest for divine truth was an important driver in why scientists of ages past pursued their goals, in the end if they hit a stumbling block, they would go "oh well, that must be God doing that" and give up, only for someone to pick up their work and continue or finish it 300 years later. It seems here Dawkins is now doing some inverse of that, where he's now closing himself off to the call of the divine in order to pull him on his quest for knowledge, which seems limiting, and I think the point being demostrated here by JP supports how valuable that quest for divinity or divine knowledge and truth was helpful to scientists of ages past. Now you could argue that those truths are out there wether we impress upon it some divine quest or not, which is true, but our discovery of them is often driven by a search for a higher truth, not just a higher factual understanding. I think the vid is particularly frustrating as it seems to be either a massive blindspot for Dawkins or he's far too practiced with his usual defense of "well I just deal in reality" and is going into a kind of defensive mode.
Everybody knows that
@@alichamas63 No way, not everyone, clearly.
Or maybe he just thinks there’s no god…
So true, and jbp nailed him at the end explaining the concept of a dragon as a predator as a meme and an archerype. Brilliant
wish JP would talk about anything besides the bible, and wish Logos would post anything besides JP
Is mayonaise or horseradish a predator?
If I was trapped in a condiment warehouse during an earthquake, yeah.
What was this conversation supposed to be about?
What is the meta for the tooth fairy?
Jordan makes himself look clueless when arguing sam or Richard sad I like the guy lol
I love that Dawkins cannot grasp the abstract concept of dragons, yet he rocks a DNA strand right there on his tie. It's just a perfect representation of how very differently people's brains operate.
Of course he understands the concept of a dragon. When you say the “biology of a dragon” its ridiculous. It has no biological characteristics. Biological characteristics are established through biological science which is impossible since It’s mythology.
But... DNA is real? It's not an abstract concept holding our genetic information together. We've imaged it. I don't understand what you're saying.
Our “pictures” of DNA strands are abstract. They don’t actually look like that. I think that’s what OP is suggesting?
It's not that Dawkins cannot grasp the abstract concept of dragons. He just doesn't think it's something worth spending much time thinking about.
He gets it, it is just insanely stupid.
Bronze serpent? You got my attention here. Go ahead JP.
Jordan Peterson just read the Hobbit right? Also what the hell is this conversation exactly?
Why is he yelling?
well, probably because he's passionate about the point he is trying to make and he knows Dawkins is a fairly intelligent guy that doesn't get the point. it can be annoying trying to get a point across to someone and only have it hit a wall ya know?
@@justinm4497 He doesn't really have that much of a point, though. And Dawkins isn't impressed.
I don't think the biologist was convinced.
What an obtuse way of trying to make "Dragon" the standard term for Danger.... What is the point?
Ima predator to your thoughts Dawkins… But, you wouldn’t know it cause you’re not listening. 🧠😂
dont think he is all that convinced
we would have benefited with a fuller understanding by hearing Dawkins' thoughts after the "yes, yes".
I think we are fighting a civilizational war, and Peterson is all-in. I'm on that team. But, I watched this to hear Dawkins' views.
@@RickMcCargar Peterson is 'all-in' with Netanyahu and you are a mindless sheep.
You can't paint an abstraction
This isn't a comedy? Thank goodness for Richard Dawkins. They certainly do have different minds. Ha-ha. Jordan Peterson's brain is a scary place.
Who's the postmodernist now
IN WHAT WAY ISNT DRAGON REAL
Because they aren’t. Thank you. Hope that helped.
Y'all are incapable of comprehending allegory. A "dragon" is literally a meme.
It's so frustrating talking to people like that. Can't clearly define what he means, jumps from topic to topic incoherently, the discussion is going nowhere and 90% of the time it's completely unclear what the hell is even being dicussed.
So often I find myself wishing I could give people like Dawkins who shrug off so many things so flippantly the world in which they think they want. He wants a world where facts and materialistic reality are at the pinnacle of morality. I wonder how long it would take him before he got bored. Often times people think they want something without realizing such a thing may very well be their own personal hell.
Yeah the whole time I was thinking that he probably doesn’t live his life as though only facts matter.
@@LoganS91 Clearly, facts mean nothing to you so why should anyone listen to your wishful thinking?
@@undercoveragent9889 The fact is that you don’t live your life as if only facts matter. You’re made of matter and consciousness will end when you die. Why do anything if you’re going to die one day? Why care what “impact” you make on the world? And the impact you make won’t even be physically measurable. The lasting impacts that people make are their example or memories they created. We don’t live lives driven by facts, and it’s inappropriate to think that “facts” and “wishful thinking” are the only two options in how to perceive the world.
The dragon is the therio... The drug that kills you and beacons the woman to bring you back to life. Find Ammon Hillman
I think these two men are dismissive of each other. Dawkins makes valid points about finding truth through scientific means...there's no question about that. And JP is arguing for the pragmatism of metaphorical stories and symbols. I don't think he's saying that stories are true, I think he's saying that stories have as much value as science in a different way in the fact they do emit ideas and resolutions.
While Jordan Peterson is a brilliant mind he seems to be lost in his own mind increasingly. End of story
God almighty, what is JP talking about??
The dragon most importantly transcends time. No matter what culture you emerge in the notion of a dragon innately resonates. Symbolic descriptions of reality are cross cultural and thats what makes them ultimately important and inevitable.
Dragon means different things in different cultures so no.
@@MsRuell No. they emphasize different aspects of the same thing; water, fertility, and chaos. You say “different cultures” so casually, neglecting the importance of the fact that it naturally emerges cross culturally.
yeah but they mean a flying lizard that breathes fire. like flesh and bones.
I think this is why so many people have trouble understanding JP. to most people, especially the new atheist types, "real" simply meaning exists within physical reality. Jordan views "real" as anything that conveys truth, metaphors, architypes, stories, they all convey some deeper truth about life, and are therefor just as "real" as the phone in your hand.
@jonnyxquest thats fine. But that's not what they asked. They asked about flying lizards that breathed fire. Not the metaphor for danger. They were specific. I'm a JP fan. I'm a Christian. But we need to stop with a bait and switch. Try saying this, dragon never ment flying lizard that breathes fire ,it means great lizard. Which it does. Well "terrible lizard". Atheists impose the " flying lizard that breathes fire " on purpose to make it more disbelievable because the bible never describes a fling lizard that breathes fire. It describes 2 what I would call dinosaur/dragon. And it describes them in detail. Neither fly. And if I'm correct the behemoth is the only "real" dinosaur described while the leviathan I believe was a metaphor for Israel's enemies and how God controls the enemies of Isreal.
@chasefoster8092 it's not a bait and switch, it's ignoring what is a pointless question and answering the real question instead.
He's giving you the conceptualization of a biological link between psychopathy and conciousness.
People look at religious people as nuts.
He's explaining how people who made the "fairy tale" might have been doing so in a way that we haven't been understanding.
He's probably worked up because its a mix of realization of and its possibilities, feeling of intelligent people not trying to actually conceptualize so he feels like its something to discuss and think through together rather than carry all the burden, then just the natural rush and high one gets getting the brain ticking so good.
Conceptualizing certain things kinda disassociates the person while they do it so a mild lack of self because the brain naturally does that to think deeply.
Also the stress working the brain out in a different kinda way causes.
Honestly when you think about it and i get to see it in another it makes sense how fighting and committing crime is one of the biggest causes of our species development.
All i gotta say is if worse comes i have my word on them already fr.
Preservation of certain things is mine n they who I'd want to preserve it.
Well-explained dang
So many buzzword just to say dragon is a interesting concept.
Christopher Hitchens would have been quite a Match, its a shame we will never get to see JP and him talk together
When I see the neck veins bulging, I know the speaker has lost the intellectual battle.
Yea..
Damn, Jordan is the GOAT
Hey...comment dweller...let's play a game! I fed ChatGPT the prompt "Write me a paragraph in the style of a pretentious know-it-all saying a bunch of unconnected nonsense to sound smart. Excessive use of long words and technical philosophy jargon is encouraged". See how many JP-isms you can find and reply with your score!
"Ah, the ontological quandaries of existential phenomenology juxtaposed with the epistemic limitations inherent in postmodern discourse unveil a labyrinthine tapestry of semiotic interplay. One must ponder the hegemony of cultural relativism as it perturbs the epistemological foundations of our collective understanding, rendering the binary constructs of true and false mere ephemeral illusions. Indeed, the teleological implications of this dialectical synthesis evoke a profound contemplation of the Cartesian cogito vis-à-vis the ineffable nuances of intersubjectivity. In this grandiloquent milieu, we are inexorably compelled to interrogate the metaphysical underpinnings of authenticity, whilst navigating the serpentine intricacies of hyperreality that permeate contemporary society. Thus, one might assert with profound gravitas that the synthesis of these multifarious paradigms culminates in a paradigmatic shift towards an increasingly nebulous epistemology."
Dinosaur / Dragon
What the actual clown show did I just watch?
Look this is the same kind of stuff that Peterson did during that very first Sam Harris appearance all those years ago. He has a completely baffling and incoherent notion of 'truth' and reality.
I heard that in your dreams you cannot dream of someone's face that you have not seen. Since dragons aren't obviously real, it interesting how much society has found a identity of a dragon in amalgamation and utilized it in a very specific story, while repeating it.
Therefore humans as a collective wouldn't even bring the story of the dragon into existence and use it as reference of a story (extracting meaning). If everything was a tangible or something that you can access physically. That way is a one sided approach, nothing can be in human understanding if it's not on this earth, which really falls flat, because inventions are always the unknown, not known.
The story of the dragon is just the representation to the natural path humans all follow. This massive feat of a dragon that is Infront of you, but even though this great beast is in front of you, your proclivity will be to use all of your will power and ability to slay the dragon (conquering your fears and turning into courage) and when doing so, you will have the greatest reward on the other side once you triumph.
JP has read the Bible and understands metaphors but Richard Dawkins doesn't
Anyone who listens carefully would understand the difference between both of them
Honestly I understand JP .
Drawing the distinction between ignorance and stupidity, Peterson is the most stupid person I've come across in a long time. Sadly, religion does that to people.
it is important that dragons in concept do exist because this is a part of human intelligence. a human with the inability to grasp these kind of concepts is actually categorized as "autistic" and is considered disabled. in English stories,, the "wolf" was usually the predator. imagination and abstract thought are considered normal and a part of intelligence. that is why JP as a psychologist is so concern. Has Dawkins been tested for autism?
Lots of those in the sciences are autistic, and I was thinking similar about Dawkin's when he so aggressively said he only cares about facts. That's a very autistic view, even for us hardcore science types, human behavior and the brain's development is super interesting and Dawkin's literally couldn't care less until... evolution got pull it. Evolution is Dawkin's trains. Everything Jordon was saying was very interesting to any intelligent person that isn't autistically stuck to one topic.
CORINTHIANS 1:18-21
Dawkins playing the knieve fool. As if he doesn't know about the significance of symbolic and mythological patterns running our lives. As if he doesn'tknow about the dragon bloodlines, cmon.
The dragon bloodlines....?
you mean naive?
Gentlemen, gentlemen, unless you become as children, you will in no way enter God's Kingdom. This conversation is silly and futile. It can produce no eternal fruit.
That's not true. God accomplished His purpose in it.
That statement is pointing to revitalizing curiosity and ignorance, so that new ideas can be grasped. It doesn’t mean to be dull..
“Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
Experts are not curious, or interested in new ideas. They cling to their own, preventing them from arriving to the Kingdom.
Key of knowledge may equal curiousity .
This is what people need to see nowadays? People arguing? Eventually, you can have your own opinions too.
In order to even have opinions you have to learn about many topics. People do so by watching others who have spent a lot of time researching a particular area. Only then can you start thinking for yourself. Only idiots avoid learning.
JP’s mind is amazing.
Symbols represent facts dude.
Ideas, stories, data, etc.
Sounds like a meme lol
I think the host I way out of his league.
I think he was as confused as Dawkins about this dragon nonsense