I'm certainly a product of the new atheist movement from the 2000's and very much appreciate Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris for making intellectual skepticism a main part of the culture; however Jordan is trying to tease out something deeper, about how to live a more meaningful life and build a better society. Richard is so narrowly focused on what life is that he can't appreciate Jordan's position that mythology and archetypes can teach us how to live...
O'Connor trashed Harris and his view on their last Debate. O'connor has finally acknowledged that Atheist has 0 prescription for morality. They have ethical feelings but they are not grounded in anything other than I feel. He is on the verge of realizing what most atheist do on their death beds. At least now from they way I see it O'Connor has moved from atheist to Agnositc at a minimum.
Maybe, but I suspect he's just wary of Jesus smuggling. The reality is that what Jordan is describing fits within the concept of Memetic Evolution that Dawkins described back in 1977. It doesn't seem to point to anything supernatural, and on that ground Dawkins is right to be skeptical. But imo the failure of Dawkins is not recognizing that memes can be more than mere viruses and also analogous to the genes of multicellular life, and that's what religions effectively seem to be. The problem with both the religious and the atheist is they are still too trapped in the literalist interpretation and the relationship of such to supernatural claims. The reality seems to me that religion is actually more true than either side recognizes, but in a completely different way that either tends to imagine. It's very deep but also natural in origin. The atheist is right to be skeptical of the superstition and magical thinking but ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and the religious person projects the supernatural behind every example demonstrating the depth behind their allegories, committing a red herring. It doesn't follow.
Me too ...until I realized the answer to every question was an honest "we don't know ." That's the scientific expert consensus...it's true...but not a working model. Dawkins is using his left brain entirely and has no use for creativity or interest in the subjective experience of objective being. He doesn't see reality as it is...he sees it as he is. Which we all do to various degrees
Well said. Though I do think Big Rich would actually agree that myth can teach us how to live, it's just that he's always going to go hard after specific, literal doctrinal beliefs; which from a hard science worldview sortof HAVE TO be dismissed. It seems we humans can't squeeze enough "juice" out of myth and archetype unless we go hard in the paint toward literalism?
I think he’s willing to acknowledge that there’s plenty to learn from mythology but JP is a very highly educated high IQ modern man who’s most likely adding meaning to old stories that isn’t there. I mean the people who wrote the stories aren’t on JPs level. The other problem is that Christians take all of this literally and even JP knows that’s ridiculous. So even the guy defending Christianity isn’t by definition a Christian.
Dr Dawkins seems to suffer from the Darwin syndrome - the great Charles Darwin confessed that all the scientific thinking made it hard if not impossible for him to appreciate art, in the wider sense. As Emily Dickenson pointed out: "A colour stands abroad On solitary fields That science cannot overtake, But human nature feels". The Bronze Serpent was indeed a literary masterstroke.
@@JohnTheRevelator11 That's a general tendency I've observed as a software engineer working with other engineers. I'm an oddball in that I'm a dual major in VisArts and CompSci and appreciate both STEM as well as the arts and humanities, and do find a type of pragmatic truth in both. I find more of what we might call "truth" in the vernacular in STEM, and "wisdom" in the likes of literature, art history, theology, and philosophy. However, I must admit that I'm not the brightest engineer. So many of my colleagues who are more skewed towards a pure STEM passion are brighter than me mathematically and scientifically. We also almost speak a different language: I love my metaphors and analogies (even though they're imprecise in ways that drives some of my colleagues nuts), since I'm more focused on "beauty/harmony" of design which is difficult to express in the quantifiable terms (I need more poetic devices) while they're purely focused on precision and "functionality/metrics".
@@JohnTheRevelator11 Something I'm wondering about is the degree of interest in people vs. things as JP repeatedly points out as a distinguishing characteristic between most men and most women (although JP is clearly an exception as a clinical psychologist). I think those of us who are more interested in people tend to gravitate towards the Arts & Humanities and be more "right-brained". It's through an interest in people that I became an illustrator before I became an engineer, since I saw illustration as not just the process of creating a "thing", but sharing and expressing my thoughts to people about what I thought was meaningful and beautiful: it's a form of communication for me. And then unlike most of my peers, I gravitated towards developing software as well but saw software engineering as just another art form, and code as a medium of artistic expression no different from a canvas. Also I suspect it's those most interested in people and human nature that tend to find subjects like literary fiction and history most fascinating. But the absolute best engineers and scientists tend to be those exceptionally interested in things over people, and I suspect that's why they tend to find the Arts & Humanities relatively much less interesting over hard sciences and empirical facts. Anyway, I hope you'll forgive my rambling but that's something I've always pondered about. It's a source of communication and interest conflict I have with many of my colleagues; watching JP's discussion with Dawkins reminded me a bit of my discussions with my fellow engineers.
Probably an exception to the "rule" but Feynman (theoretical physicist) was one of those. If you ever seen the video of him from his 1981 BBC interview, one clip here on UA-cam called "The Beauty of a Flower" is one that is kind of an antithesis to Darwin's point of view as you stated. His scientific thinking only made him more able to appreciate art, and beauty in the world.
Thank you Jordan for bringing these stories to life. I've had conversations with a few friends about these ideas, that had made them care and made the Bible relevant in lives. I'm very excited about what you have in your sleeves in your upcoming book!
@@_Be_Still Absolutely, its so staggeringly genius, that its hard to deny some kind of divinity at work. Also if you like that take a look at how Jesus compares himself to jacobs ladder
@@Pannkakaize if you have a Bible read numbers 21: 1-9. Then read John 3:14-15. If you don’t have a Bible you can use an online Bible. If you’re not a Christian, bear in mind that the event in numbers happened 1439 years before it got referenced in John.
@@Pannkakaize Jesus compares himself to snake, which generally represents satan or sin in jewish thought. This comparison also seems strange given Jesus' claims to divinity in almost the next verse. Why would one who is perfect say refer to himself as sin? Read the passages @_Be_Still mentioned and then read 2 Corinthians 5:21 the connection should become clear
If you all heard the entire conversation , Dawkins eventually meets Peterson halfway. Yes, he is cold and disconnected from anything that isn’t grounded in scientific, factual and empirical but he eventually gets curios. I think he came in looking for a debate while Jordan came in seeking his thoughts and input. Dawkins’ stance has always been around the burden of proof on people that claim sacredness of the texts to demonstrate empirically that the Bible , the stories and its claims are factual and demonstrate scientific evidence. Jordan however manages to open him up to the idea that the stories , archetypes and metaphors within the texts regardless of their historical accuracy or authenticity have meaning, substance and the power to evolve over time across the various generations, cultures in a way that is not only consistent but more so important for the future of humanity and western civilization. The both agree what Jordan describes happening in educational institutions and universities is detrimental. Eventually in their conversation the common ground they find is around how post modern thinking has given rise to a nihilistic bent due to their departure from judeo -Christian influence on art, philosophy and even science , which Dawkins stakes his entire existence on).
Looking forward to listening to the whole thing. Don't know why people are surprised that it was not 100% smooth sailing with Dawkins, especially if you heard the talks with Peterson and Harris years ago, long before he was associated with Daily Wire or other stuff. The first talk between Harris and Peterson was a philosophical gridlock lol (I think it was on Harris' Waking Up podcast).
@@hajsh67 I don’t either but I know I was projecting back at Dawkins a feeling of contempt initially when I was watching the whole thing because it seemed like he was trying to play gotcha with Peterson but as the conversation unfolded I realized he’s not doing that. He’s just sincerely married to his idea(whether or not it has a negative affect on his attitude or curiosity). He is committed to not show any willingness to hear topics outside of what interests him. Eventually he had a moment where the idea of stories evolving peaked his interest and he admitted it. Maybe he dint meet halfway but he showed some sort of deference which was otherwise absent in the entire conversation. The regular troll comments in the full length video were worth the read themselves lol
@@govindprabhu3886 Yeah I still haven't watched the whole thing. I've read a couple of Dawkins' books and watched/listened through Peterson's Maps of Meaning and Personality courses. I know already he would have better luck talking to Sam Harris again lol. I really wish Christopher Hitchens was still with us though. I remember Sam Harris on his podcast saying that Hitch would have voted for Clinton in 2016, despite his book "No One Left to Lie to", and I call BS on that lol. A very interesting person left this planet too early.
@@Cosmogonal_Hierogamy I've personally come to believe that to be chosen is to answer the call. So you could paraphrase the passage "many are called, but few respond". It's like the wedding feast that was prepared, and all those who were called to it began to make excuses, so they went into the highways and biways beckoning all who willed to come (Matt 22)
I could be wrong but during the whole conversation I got the sense that Richard was just not following. He kept saying he was unimpressed but I think he either didn’t understand the gravity of what Jordan was asserting or what he was asserting period.
he seems to be unable to understand the concept of morality. morality is not something you can simply observe with the 5 senses, but it seems the only things he can conceptualize are things that can be observed with the 5 senses.
I think JP has a tendency to overestimate the gravity of what he's saying -- understandably so as a clinical psychologist who is focused on Logotherapy and its relation to literary history. Yet Dawkins has a tendency to underestimate it as well as a hardcore empiricist. There's some practical truth and set of values I find between these two for the most of us.
@@robinsssbored from Kermit’s fairytales. I wish Jordan told the story of shrek and deep philosophical themes present there. Would’ve been more interesting 😂
I can't imagine listening to something so fundamentally human and so profound and unexpected and just blithely saying "I'm not impressed." At that point, you're just choosing to not be impressed. To harden your heart so as to not risk being convinced of something deeper than surface level.
Yes, but you would appreciate it and have an open mind. Dawkins doesn’t even have 1 percent of an open mind unfortunately. It’s really sad, actually and it holds back his development in a huge way.
Dawkins seems to be a 100% literalist. As if he lacks the capacity to extrapolate meaning and wisdom unless it is precisely spelled out for him. He's chock full of knowledge, but bereft of wisdom. His primary interest and sole goal seems to be making sure he is well positioned to exclaim, "gotcha!" before he enters a discussion. Otherwise, the discussion holds no interest for him.
when you begin to realize that religious scriptures are unscientific nonsense, you no longer are beholden to their "profound wisdom," and you can actualize your potential without scrutinizing and contemplating the meaning of tattered parchment
The reason that Christ uses that narrative is that the people of Israel that story is well ingrained like much of their history. it was very much a cultural reference. The symbolism in that goes deeper than what Peterson ever thought. Christ was saying the thing he knew they would understand in that if you turned to Christ he would save them. The problem is that the Jews were looking for a conquering messiah not a sacrificial one. They were looking for physical rescue not spiritual.
What a fresh conversation this was, Alex did and OUTSTANDING job too, PERFECT conditions made by the three of them to converse complex and difficult matters in an honest and unbiased manner. INFINITE PROPS
You can say evolution and adaptability is a necessary component of human history and I would agree. But I also think "humanity" is equally important, or maybe "spirit" is a better word. That intangible thing, hinged on conscience and emotion which creates things like stories, art and culture. It's the basis for what it means to be a human and Peterson does an excellent job at relating to people through his analysis of the Bible by bringing it into this "humanity" context. Dawkins doesn't seem at all in tune with that part and he comes off as irrationally robotic and lifeless. I feel sorry for him.
To say that a Christian like JBP aim is not not to win is deceitful. Just look at the way he talks. JBP is pretty aggressive in this one and have become very hardened in his views in my opinion. Even tho he talks like this when engaged his rhetoric involves subtle condescending tones. Not just this. Think he is under a lot of pressure and he is not seeing how it is changing him to the worse in terms of this. In a war, one armor up and lose the ability for vulnerability and change ideas and opinions. Religion have a pretty dark story and unscientific views even today. Not just Christianity.
@@goranpersson473I've been watching Peterson for years, read his books, so on, and he's a tough old b*stard, but he isn't a condescending person. You're wrong on that.
Broooo this is actually a thought I had one time that debates are displays of wisdom and there are different sort of sub wisdoms that can play a role like scientific knowledge, theological knowledge, historical knowledge etc… and in order to compete in the display of wisdom which is debating you have to learn different kinds of sub wisdoms like how martial artists have to learn many martial arts to compete in mma because a pure boxing guy would get destroyed in a mma fight typically similar to how a pure history or philosophy kind of debater would get destroyed by a more diverse debater.
Dr. Peterson, After listening to your discussion with Dr. Dawkins, I have this to say. You are exceptionally insightful regarding life lessons of wisdom and extrapolations to various schools of thought that have even manifested throughout history in tandem with the growth of Christian conviction that you take out of the text of Scripture and I believe rightfully so, accurately. But I notice a crucial piece that you tend to miss, and I believe it will bring all your hesitations about Scripture to an end. When Jesus said He must be lifted up, He used a historical event to foretell another event. When Jesus went through the passion narrative and arose victorious, He explained why He did all that He did. The “belief” that Jesus commands from all people is defined succinctly in Hebrews 11:6, “believe God exists, believe He will reward you if you seek Him, and seek Him.” Seek God, and you will find Him. Don’t merely settle for principles that are true, seek the Person. You will find Him. I pray God blesses you, Joshua
“It’s always some kind of moral lesson, which leaves me cold”. Well, the guy summarised it perfectly: anything beyond solid facts is unintelligible to him. He just doesn’t get abstract ideas. The two debaters were just in two very different levels, and while I think Peterson could play on Dawkins’ level, Dawkins was unable to rise to Peterson’s philosophical abstractions, which he just dismissed as “non-facts”.
He clearly understands them, he just doesn't agree with them. And if you pay a little attention, you'll notice that it's not Jordan who is being patient. In fact its laughable to even suggest that, as he is always the one talking 90% of the time. Unless you admire how little patience he has, then you should have just said impatience.
Oh there's a scripture I don't know where it is about how God closes off revelation to those not willing or interested in understanding or whose heart is not prepared yet to accept the deeper things. Something like that. Peterson is a brilliant mind and a sincere hearted person earnestly searching for the right answers. I just learned something from him here I never saw before. Thank you Jordan.
Several. Conscious seared with hot iron. Branded as well.1 Timothy 4:2 Lacking ears to hear and eyes to see. Isaiah 6:10,Jeremiah 5:21,Ezekiel 12:2,Matthew 13:15,Acts 28:27,Romans 11:8 Genesis 37:18-33 josephs' brothers sparing his life to sell him into slavery, leading to their salvation. There are more. God bless.
Peterson demonstrates a refreshing brilliance discussing the Old Testament and articulating from deep analysis critical meaning from some of what he refers to as "oldly peculiar" quotes from God and others. You will seldom see anyone like Richard Dawson at a loss for words in response to Petersons narrative... but this is one of them :)
Brilliant talk - I know you sometimes talk and others seem to have no point of reference of understanding but keep doing it because some of us benefit greatly
As someone who has dabbled in atheism, have even read several of Dawkins books, there is nothing more annoying than those who are so sure of their atheism. I’ve met individuals who effectively made fun of others who not only believed in God but those who would say I don’t know. It was enough to point me back towards belief in God.
This reminded me of the Exodus series where Dennis Prager was so impressed that the 10 commandments could be divided into 2 groups of 5 that it could only have been from divine intervention? I don't think Dawkins would be much impressed with that either
Would love to hear Jordan's thoughts about the Israelites worshiping the snake years later in 2 Kings 18. Is that a parallel with modern Christians and the cross?
Intense indeed. I find Jordan oppressive and overbearing in his manner and presentation. Not unlike the acquaintance; who when speaking to you, invades your personal space. But worse, he dictates. He is dictating his pearls of wisdom to one of the greatest minds on the planet - if I know the story and the pearls of wisdom Jordan is proffering - as if he just discovered it, then I’m sure Richard is fully aware... Richard is so calm and rational. I worry for Jordan’s mental health.
@@johnsinclair2672 Dawkins is the representation of all atheists. Single-minded, with no imagination to speak of. That doesn't mean he's unintelligent mind you, only that beyond building a spaceship he has no understanding whatsoever of what those ticking, rotting, organic fleshbags that will travel in that spaceship are or what makes them tick or struggle to survive. And please, do not worry about Peterson's mental health, though you are very kind to point out that you are worried, with no ulterior motive behind your claim to worry at all.
And, God sent the fiery serpents as much as He gave Job boils. Cross referencing from other stories shows us that God's judgments are often letting the devil have his way. The sin and complaining caused God to remove His hand of protection and in came the serpents. Jordan's metaphorical lens can actually cause us to misread what's happening and learn the wrong lessons about God's character.
Yeah, that's quite clever, but there's one important aspect of Christianity that's never mentioned: People have been around for nearly 250,000 years before the bible showed up. And Anthropologists will tell you those ancient people were no different from you and me.
The Bible states at Job 26:7 about God: "He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing"...That was written 3500 years ago. I'd say that was a startling scientific insight for its time, considering man wouldn't discover that for himself until around 300 years ago.
In Genesis it says God created two lights. One greater one to rule the day and a lighter one to rule the night. That's a big issue considering there is only one Sun and that its light simply reflects off the moon.
@@lzaslanHave you been to the moon? How do you know? Many people say the Bible is fake because people lie but suddenly people are now truthful because they say they're scientists? They can't decide how old the earth actually is or even where the first homo sapiens come from but yeah...they're totally truthful because....science.
@@shanchan8247 I can rule out the moon having its own light because if it did, there would be a full moon every single night. I am an ex believer that realized a lot of issues with the Christian religion. I don't defend science or its claims.
@@Hellish2050 What about between your ears? Did you fill it with worthwhile stuff? William Shatner; "Everything I had thought was wrong. Everything I had expected to see was wrong. I had thought that going into space would be the ultimate catharsis of that connection I had been looking for between all living things-that being up there would be the next beautiful step to understanding the harmony of the universe. In the film “Contact,” when Jodie Foster’s character goes to space and looks out into the heavens, she lets out an astonished whisper, “They should’ve sent a poet.” I had a different experience, because I discovered that the beauty isn’t out there, it’s down here, with all of us. Leaving that behind made my connection to our tiny planet even more profound. It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna . . . things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind. It filled me with dread. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral. I learned later that I was not alone in this feeling. It is called the “Overview Effect” and is not uncommon among astronauts, including Yuri Gagarin, Michael Collins, Sally Ride, and many others. Essentially, when someone travels to space and views Earth from orbit, a sense of the planet’s fragility takes hold in an ineffable, instinctive manner. Author Frank White first coined the term in 1987: “There are no borders or boundaries on our planet except those that we create in our minds or through human behaviors. All the ideas and concepts that divide us when we are on the surface begin to fade from orbit and the moon. The result is a shift in worldview, and in identity.” Stay strong. God bless.
This makes so much more sense to me than the usual, “believe on Jesus and be saved,” narrative. I was Christian for 40 years until it broke me. I couldn’t believe in a god of conditional love, or a god that manipulates his people by making them feel like they owe him something. As a symbol and a real life lesson, Yeshua dying on the cross sounds like redemption to me, rather than buying a soul for a belief.
I have to agree with Richard, there’s nothing that astounding about the Gospel writers pulling literary inspiration from the Old Testament, especially when they’re deliberately trying to draw parallels to establish the Messianic nature of Jesus
@@markr5251 yet equating analogies is prone to misleading conclusions. It doesn’t work in logic, in science, or in daily life. However, I do think it works well for human narratives, both cultural and internal. At least with honest qualifiers that convey the limitations of the analogy. You can say “yes it differs there, but the analogous parts I’ve identified hold true” and the meaningful discussion carries forward! Peterson often bites the bullet and says “this is *literally* is the same as that” and that can derail a conversation where the other party wants to stay grounded and stray from what sounds like flawed fantastical thinking. I really don’t think it’s a requirement whatsoever for Peterson to do this, but alas it’s his style. I like it, but I get frustrated when he fails to meet at a common ground and loses his listener.
Anyone who has difficulty with Jordan Peterson's take on the mythological should watch the film Life Of Pi. It's a beautiful film and a wonderful lesson in thinking about life symbolically as opposed to literally. Writer Robert Bly did some very important work in this area in his books Iron John and The Sibling Society as well.
From what I understand from the conversation is that the Israelites were overly complaining about conditions of life, until when snakes were added to the picture, that was really when the the people really understood hardship and had something to worry about. Which then in the bronze statue, it was a reminder that all of the problems they had before, were imaginary until you actually are faced with actual dangers in life (kinda like how boredom, or miss aligned meaning can make life seem a lot worse then it is). Which is the understanding of traumas and in my opinion the true nature of behavior that is out to bite you. Which to me the Dark Triad Traits beautifully assists the backing of religion through the 7 deadly sins, and the two ideologies aren't as different as one seems.
I’m not comparing myself to these guys, but I find that the more my eyes are opened and the more I understand about the world and existence the nuttier I become. The saying ignorance is bliss is pertinent.
I loved that dialogue. Excellent Jordan! God would be even more delighted to hear you affirm your convictions to those who ask. Then they would have to reason what contributing realities they are not considering to the propositions of Christianity. If God can make the world and mankind, having Himself be revealed through the womb of a woman is an ordinary feat. Astoundingly, I am persuaded that Richard was curiously interested in the Divine. He wants evidence for something miraculous. A personal testimony answers this inquiry.
Dr. Peterson, you should really interview Dr. James Tour. He's a Jewish convert to Christianity and is also one of the top 50 scientists in the world. He has his own UA-cam channel under his name. He has so much biblical knowledge and you should really consider interviewing him.
The Moderator flubbed this horribly. Jordan Peterson’s assertion was this: “If you, Richard Dawkins, are criticizing individuals for taking the passion story as the ultimate guiding story - and you offer no alternative guiding story in its place - then why must you criticize those individuals to begin with; especially when their guiding story indeed produces tangible good in the world?” And the Moderator framed it to Dawkins as: “Peterson says this story is not just impressive, but rather it is actually super impressive. Do you believe in God now?”
I'm rather uneducated but have been around a bit in my life. I remember debate between Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell. I think Dawkins is a human lite weight.
Dawkins once said essentially that nothing could convince him of the existence of God existence. Debating someone is a pointless exercise. He also exposes himself as not a scientist but a fanatic.
I wish that Peterson would just own himself as a psychologist, and say 'hey l'm a psychologist and this stuff really interests me, I think that the bible is extremely fascinating and valuable and what's even more interesting to me, is that I can see this from a non-religious perspective - and through engaging with it academically and in my own life, quite ironically, it inspires something religious within me. And all I know is that the deeper I go with this stuff, the deeper the feeling of religiosity becomes. - did it historically happen? I don't know, but the possibility excites me'
Turns out a scientists brain is like a screwdriver and an intellectuals is like a good multitool. The screwdriver might be slightly more comfortable with a screw but can’t do fuck all else lol
This entire conversation was just Peterson artistically expressing his opinions, and Dawkins saying that he's unimpressed. When it comes to the pursuit of truth, it's clear which kind of attitude has an advantage over the other.
@@onmywayup94 True. The truth is undoubtedly too abstract to comprehend for the human brain. The truth of science is inconsequential compared to the knowledge that's out there. Those that restrict themselves only to scientific truths will never go beyond their self imposed limitations.
Peterson unquestionably ranks among the top intellectuals in the contemporary world, while Dawkins here confirms that his intellectual range is quite shallow and therefore tragically limited.
For a long time, I've liked Star Wars, but as I got older, I realized that Star Trek was actually my favorite. However, I've never been a big fan of The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. 🤷♂️
@YHShinVH Have you noticed that arguing about which God is real is a lot like arguing about which ( Archon) ruler (Politician) you should "vote" for to become 'el' ected? 💀
The fact that dawkins is reluctant to believe the truth of the biblical stories doesn’t imply his lack of understanding. As he said, if there was evidence given to indicate agreement or prediction of a contemporary known scientific truth without coming back to a moral lesson, such as the earth revolving around the sun, he wouldn’t hesitate to humor the validity of that section of the biblical text. This notion has been echoed by other scientific thinkers, like Bill nye, to suggest that science can expand and retract the known truth where religion is unable to do so.
Dawkins needs to explain how it is that people who have not one iota of understanding of quantum physics can have profound wisdom and understanding of the bible. I was not taught how to understand the bible at all....but yet I understand it.
I think Dawkins is a scientist and Peterson is an artist/philosopher. Jordan is an artist of word. We really need scientists but we really need artists too. I dont support dichotomy between those two. We really need both of them and we need to understand their place and their value.
Science vs Religion Is an old battleground of Western culture. Science can be proven right or wrong but the same cannot be said for the latter. It's always an impasse.
8:10 They do actually. Job says God suspends the earth over nothing and Isaiah says the earth is a circle which can be translated from the original Hebrew as a ball or sphere. Both statements were written when many thought the earth was flat and sat on an animal or a giant human e.g. Atlas.
The “serpent on the pole” represents “the destructive nature of sin.” It’s written: “God made Him (Christ) who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ (the IAM Who IAM) created our world and took responsibility for the “Fall of Man” at the Cross. Jesus became Sin for us. Now… does that mean everyone is healed of the curse of Sin. NO! Only those who look to Redemptive Work of the Cross where Jesus took our sins and imparted to us His Righteousness! Consider this: If you miss the train by a millisecond and I miss the train by a million years, the consequence is the same; we have both missed the train are left under the destructive nature of sin. Healing for mind, soul and body comes via the Holy Spirit when we accept Christ as Lord and Savior (from Sin’s destructive work and ultimately, Hell! Note people like Alice Cooper (Kiss) who realize the miraculous healing and redemptive work of Christ Jesus in their lives!
Reading some of these comments: I think yawl are being a bit unfair on Richard. He does have an interest in the humanities. He has spelled out many times his love of poetry and music, just not in the area that JP seems to be. I think Richard recognizes art for what it is. If there is to be a criticism in the context of this discussion; perhaps Richard isn't interested in some of the symbolism, that may underpin some forms of artistic expression. Perhaps he's a consumer of art and not that interested in art history. But that is putting words in his mouth and is just my take.
A wise genius scientist who has always linked science, history, politics, religion, psychology, and humanity. On the other hand, arrogant evolutionists claim to be scientists, but I have never heard him discuss science other than to blame faith and religion.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" you absolute muppet. Unironically saying evolutionist disqualified you from any intellectual discussion. It's just a strawman word made up by reality denying moron to try to paint basic facts as beliefs to hep them cope with their allergy of them. Facts aren't beliefs just because you don't like them
You might be curious about why God allowed the Pharaoh during the Exodus so much time to change his mind, yet he stubbornly refused. It wasn't until the death of his firstborn that he finally let the Israelites go, but even then, he didn't back down, which ultimately led to his demise in the sea. This situation feels similar to what we're seeing with Dawkins, who also seems unwilling to repent. It's hard to say what it would take for him to see the light. However, God might be trying to reach him through Dr. Jordan Peterson. If Dawkins dismisses that message, it wouldn't be surprising if his time runs out. Pray for Dawkins that he come to the knowledge of the truth of Christ before it is too late.
Dawkins can easily by convinced by the supernatural. That's exactly how Christ and the Apostles did it. That is the ministry of the Holy Spirit and Power. There is a limit to apologetics though it is very useful but seeing known scientific laws broken and your rigid worldview shattered is the most convincing approach. For example, lepers were cleansed, the lame walked, the blind saw, the dead was raised by Christ and His Apostles throughout church history and the same mandate was given to believers. The problem is the Church (particularly in the West) lost its power and the consequence is the great falling away.
Sitting across from Jordan Peterson must feel to Dawkins like he’s having another stroke. If I were fortunate enough myself to sit across from him I’d be sure to bring a bottle of Newman’s Own to make it palatable.
Prof if you can address reading the Bible from revelations to Genesis, since it was initially written in Hebrew, such that Genesis is the last book you read, and revelation the first, the most important book must be revelation because it reveals the truth
Out of the two, I think JP is that one that could have adapted to RD, but he seemed to have missed all the signs that RD was just looking at the door and wishing it was over.
Winnie the Pooh said to the bleating sheep who believed him, "If you abide in my words, you are my friends indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." They answered him, "We are the descendants of the flock and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, 'You will be made free'?" Pooh answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits mischief is a slave to mischief. And a slave does not abide in the meadow forever, but a friend abides forever. Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."
Its quite interesting that how people react , I was skimming through all the comments in Jordons channel and Alex channel , interesting thing is everybody is defending what they believe in , Its clear that people watching Alex channel has a more tendency of defending Richard while people who sees Jordon has a tendency of defending Jordon. Its like a clash between philosophers and Materialists. I found the whole debate interesting, and Fully understand how both of them were talking from their perspective.
I don't need any one text to validate or give me a understanding of spiritual reality and of human existence and condition. Yet I do see it in many forms of religious texts there's a mirroring and some have different qualities that enhance others. I just find it odd even if it's just a manifestation within our own consciousness, people seem to ignore a metaphysical reality that's applicable to life.. I know it to be true from direct experience but I understand that's far and few between that can honestly genuinely say that..
I'm certainly a product of the new atheist movement from the 2000's and very much appreciate Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris for making intellectual skepticism a main part of the culture; however Jordan is trying to tease out something deeper, about how to live a more meaningful life and build a better society.
Richard is so narrowly focused on what life is that he can't appreciate Jordan's position that mythology and archetypes can teach us how to live...
O'Connor trashed Harris and his view on their last Debate. O'connor has finally acknowledged that Atheist has 0 prescription for morality. They have ethical feelings but they are not grounded in anything other than I feel. He is on the verge of realizing what most atheist do on their death beds. At least now from they way I see it O'Connor has moved from atheist to Agnositc at a minimum.
Maybe, but I suspect he's just wary of Jesus smuggling.
The reality is that what Jordan is describing fits within the concept of Memetic Evolution that Dawkins described back in 1977. It doesn't seem to point to anything supernatural, and on that ground Dawkins is right to be skeptical. But imo the failure of Dawkins is not recognizing that memes can be more than mere viruses and also analogous to the genes of multicellular life, and that's what religions effectively seem to be.
The problem with both the religious and the atheist is they are still too trapped in the literalist interpretation and the relationship of such to supernatural claims. The reality seems to me that religion is actually more true than either side recognizes, but in a completely different way that either tends to imagine. It's very deep but also natural in origin.
The atheist is right to be skeptical of the superstition and magical thinking but ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and the religious person projects the supernatural behind every example demonstrating the depth behind their allegories, committing a red herring. It doesn't follow.
Me too ...until I realized the answer to every question was an honest "we don't know ." That's the scientific expert consensus...it's true...but not a working model. Dawkins is using his left brain entirely and has no use for creativity or interest in the subjective experience of objective being. He doesn't see reality as it is...he sees it as he is. Which we all do to various degrees
Well said. Though I do think Big Rich would actually agree that myth can teach us how to live, it's just that he's always going to go hard after specific, literal doctrinal beliefs; which from a hard science worldview sortof HAVE TO be dismissed.
It seems we humans can't squeeze enough "juice" out of myth and archetype unless we go hard in the paint toward literalism?
I think he’s willing to acknowledge that there’s plenty to learn from mythology but JP is a very highly educated high IQ modern man who’s most likely adding meaning to old stories that isn’t there. I mean the people who wrote the stories aren’t on JPs level.
The other problem is that Christians take all of this literally and even JP knows that’s ridiculous. So even the guy defending Christianity isn’t by definition a Christian.
Masterclass from Peterson!
Dr Dawkins seems to suffer from the Darwin syndrome - the great Charles Darwin confessed that all the scientific thinking made it hard if not impossible for him to appreciate art, in the wider sense. As Emily Dickenson pointed out: "A colour stands abroad On solitary fields That science cannot overtake, But human nature feels". The Bronze Serpent was indeed a literary masterstroke.
Charles Darwin wasn't great
Oh yes! Great comment.
It’s very interesting that most literals and scientific great minds can not appreciate anything that’s right brained.
@@JohnTheRevelator11 That's a general tendency I've observed as a software engineer working with other engineers. I'm an oddball in that I'm a dual major in VisArts and CompSci and appreciate both STEM as well as the arts and humanities, and do find a type of pragmatic truth in both. I find more of what we might call "truth" in the vernacular in STEM, and "wisdom" in the likes of literature, art history, theology, and philosophy.
However, I must admit that I'm not the brightest engineer. So many of my colleagues who are more skewed towards a pure STEM passion are brighter than me mathematically and scientifically. We also almost speak a different language: I love my metaphors and analogies (even though they're imprecise in ways that drives some of my colleagues nuts), since I'm more focused on "beauty/harmony" of design which is difficult to express in the quantifiable terms (I need more poetic devices) while they're purely focused on precision and "functionality/metrics".
@@JohnTheRevelator11 Something I'm wondering about is the degree of interest in people vs. things as JP repeatedly points out as a distinguishing characteristic between most men and most women (although JP is clearly an exception as a clinical psychologist).
I think those of us who are more interested in people tend to gravitate towards the Arts & Humanities and be more "right-brained". It's through an interest in people that I became an illustrator before I became an engineer, since I saw illustration as not just the process of creating a "thing", but sharing and expressing my thoughts to people about what I thought was meaningful and beautiful: it's a form of communication for me. And then unlike most of my peers, I gravitated towards developing software as well but saw software engineering as just another art form, and code as a medium of artistic expression no different from a canvas.
Also I suspect it's those most interested in people and human nature that tend to find subjects like literary fiction and history most fascinating.
But the absolute best engineers and scientists tend to be those exceptionally interested in things over people, and I suspect that's why they tend to find the Arts & Humanities relatively much less interesting over hard sciences and empirical facts.
Anyway, I hope you'll forgive my rambling but that's something I've always pondered about. It's a source of communication and interest conflict I have with many of my colleagues; watching JP's discussion with Dawkins reminded me a bit of my discussions with my fellow engineers.
Probably an exception to the "rule" but Feynman (theoretical physicist) was one of those. If you ever seen the video of him from his 1981 BBC interview, one clip here on UA-cam called "The Beauty of a Flower" is one that is kind of an antithesis to Darwin's point of view as you stated. His scientific thinking only made him more able to appreciate art, and beauty in the world.
Thank you Jordan for bringing these stories to life. I've had conversations with a few friends about these ideas, that had made them care and made the Bible relevant in lives. I'm very excited about what you have in your sleeves in your upcoming book!
This connection is literally the story that brought me to belief
Exactly. Guess what, I read about this in the old testament but I never saw this passage in the NT. After listening to it, it strengthened my faith.
@@_Be_Still Absolutely, its so staggeringly genius, that its hard to deny some kind of divinity at work. Also if you like that take a look at how Jesus compares himself to jacobs ladder
I dont get it, what connection
@@Pannkakaize if you have a Bible read numbers 21: 1-9. Then read John 3:14-15.
If you don’t have a Bible you can use an online Bible.
If you’re not a Christian, bear in mind that the event in numbers happened 1439 years before it got referenced in John.
@@Pannkakaize Jesus compares himself to snake, which generally represents satan or sin in jewish thought. This comparison also seems strange given Jesus' claims to divinity in almost the next verse. Why would one who is perfect say refer to himself as sin?
Read the passages @_Be_Still mentioned and then read 2 Corinthians 5:21 the connection should become clear
If you all heard the entire conversation , Dawkins eventually meets Peterson halfway. Yes, he is cold and disconnected from anything that isn’t grounded in scientific, factual and empirical but he eventually gets curios. I think he came in looking for a debate while Jordan came in seeking his thoughts and input. Dawkins’ stance has always been around the burden of proof on people that claim sacredness of the texts to demonstrate empirically that the Bible , the stories and its claims are factual and demonstrate scientific evidence. Jordan however manages to open him up to the idea that the stories , archetypes and metaphors within the texts regardless of their historical accuracy or authenticity have meaning, substance and the power to evolve over time across the various generations, cultures in a way that is not only consistent but more so important for the future of humanity and western civilization. The both agree what Jordan describes happening in educational institutions and universities is detrimental. Eventually in their conversation the common ground they find is around how post modern thinking has given rise to a nihilistic bent due to their departure from judeo -Christian influence on art, philosophy and even science , which Dawkins stakes his entire existence on).
Looking forward to listening to the whole thing. Don't know why people are surprised that it was not 100% smooth sailing with Dawkins, especially if you heard the talks with Peterson and Harris years ago, long before he was associated with Daily Wire or other stuff. The first talk between Harris and Peterson was a philosophical gridlock lol (I think it was on Harris' Waking Up podcast).
@@hajsh67 I don’t either but I know I was projecting back at Dawkins a feeling of contempt initially when I was watching the whole thing because it seemed like he was trying to play gotcha with Peterson but as the conversation unfolded I realized he’s not doing that. He’s just sincerely married to his idea(whether or not it has a negative affect on his attitude or curiosity). He is committed to not show any willingness to hear topics outside of what interests him. Eventually he had a moment where the idea of stories evolving peaked his interest and he admitted it. Maybe he dint meet halfway but he showed some sort of deference which was otherwise absent in the entire conversation. The regular troll comments in the full length video were worth the read themselves lol
@@govindprabhu3886 Yeah I still haven't watched the whole thing. I've read a couple of Dawkins' books and watched/listened through Peterson's Maps of Meaning and Personality courses. I know already he would have better luck talking to Sam Harris again lol. I really wish Christopher Hitchens was still with us though. I remember Sam Harris on his podcast saying that Hitch would have voted for Clinton in 2016, despite his book "No One Left to Lie to", and I call BS on that lol. A very interesting person left this planet too early.
No he doesn’t. They share some of the same beliefs, but Dawkins did not ‘meet halfway’ on any of the white noise talk on religion.
@@blue24563 yeah I walked that back in my subsequent message 😂
many are called, but few are chosen
Try telling that to Pope Francis. He has stated that all religions lead to God. That is not what Jesus stated.
@@Hellish2050 Yes, he couldn't have revealed himself more clearly
@@PerryWidhalm It's from the Bible. You'd know that if you actually read it
@@Cosmogonal_Hierogamy I've personally come to believe that to be chosen is to answer the call. So you could paraphrase the passage "many are called, but few respond". It's like the wedding feast that was prepared, and all those who were called to it began to make excuses, so they went into the highways and biways beckoning all who willed to come (Matt 22)
Here's a Calvie flexing his/her pride for being a part of the special "elect" 😂
We love you, Jordan peterson ❤❤❤❤❤❤
I could listen to Jordan all day! The knowledge and passion Mr Peterson has is a wonderful sight.
Used to like him. Now he rambles on and says little in between his fancy words and meandering ideas.
Dr. Peterson is absolutely brilliant as always .
Watch his conversation with Dillahunty, you’ll get to see his pseudo intellectual rantings on religion there more clearly.
Right? He’s so good it me halfway through the second viewing to even notice there were f-ing velociraptors outside their window!
Say what? The Bible is a simple text and understandable..modern genetics is complicated.
No one comes to the father unless the spirit draws him.. pray for all who are lost.
I could be wrong but during the whole conversation I got the sense that Richard was just not following.
He kept saying he was unimpressed but I think he either didn’t understand the gravity of what Jordan was asserting or what he was asserting period.
He came across as THICK as a stump. I have no idea why this man is so revered. Zero imagination. Zero vision. Zero redemption.
He was simply uninterested in any dialogue of the abstract or metaphorical. This "conversation" was had in bad faith as Dawkins refused to reciprocate
he seems to be unable to understand the concept of morality. morality is not something you can simply observe with the 5 senses, but it seems the only things he can conceptualize are things that can be observed with the 5 senses.
I think JP has a tendency to overestimate the gravity of what he's saying -- understandably so as a clinical psychologist who is focused on Logotherapy and its relation to literary history. Yet Dawkins has a tendency to underestimate it as well as a hardcore empiricist. There's some practical truth and set of values I find between these two for the most of us.
@@user-no4fq6ww8s I don’t think JP is overestimating the gravity.
Brilliant observation from Peterson
Jordan is facing the serpent in this very interview. Way to lead by example sir, well done!
Dawkins yawned in boredom
@@robinsssbored from Kermit’s fairytales. I wish Jordan told the story of shrek and deep philosophical themes present there. Would’ve been more interesting 😂
I can't imagine listening to something so fundamentally human and so profound and unexpected and just blithely saying "I'm not impressed." At that point, you're just choosing to not be impressed. To harden your heart so as to not risk being convinced of something deeper than surface level.
You're hypocritical
I would be directly blessed by God to get 5 minutes of Jordan’s time
Yes, but you would appreciate it and have an open mind. Dawkins doesn’t even have 1 percent of an open mind unfortunately. It’s really sad, actually and it holds back his development in a huge way.
You live a sad life if you consider that a blessing
Dawkins seems to be a 100% literalist. As if he lacks the capacity to extrapolate meaning and wisdom unless it is precisely spelled out for him. He's chock full of knowledge, but bereft of wisdom. His primary interest and sole goal seems to be making sure he is well positioned to exclaim, "gotcha!" before he enters a discussion. Otherwise, the discussion holds no interest for him.
He’s basically Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy if he spoke in an eloquent British accent.
Being chock full of wisdom must be nice. Whatever "wisdom" is.
@@xviii5780 Is that you, Mr. Dawkins?
when you begin to realize that religious scriptures are unscientific nonsense, you no longer are beholden to their "profound wisdom," and you can actualize your potential without scrutinizing and contemplating the meaning of tattered parchment
@@abdumuminkhan8268 Oh geeze, you're one of those...
Peterson at the top of his game
Dawkins complete dismissal of a thoughtful and well articulated point is disrespectful to the debate and to Dr. Peterson.
Exceptionally.. but I think he was just out of his depth
I think JP should have taken a hint. And steered the conversation to what Dawkins likes which is cold hard facts.
@@Wingedmagician Dawkins should've never agreed to this if he was so out of his depth.
@@Wingedmagician I read that as cold hard farts.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The reason that Christ uses that narrative is that the people of Israel that story is well ingrained like much of their history. it was very much a cultural reference. The symbolism in that goes deeper than what Peterson ever thought. Christ was saying the thing he knew they would understand in that if you turned to Christ he would save them. The problem is that the Jews were looking for a conquering messiah not a sacrificial one. They were looking for physical rescue not spiritual.
Prayers for the world
What a fresh conversation this was, Alex did and OUTSTANDING job too, PERFECT conditions made by the three of them to converse complex and difficult matters in an honest and unbiased manner. INFINITE PROPS
You can say evolution and adaptability is a necessary component of human history and I would agree. But I also think "humanity" is equally important, or maybe "spirit" is a better word. That intangible thing, hinged on conscience and emotion which creates things like stories, art and culture. It's the basis for what it means to be a human and Peterson does an excellent job at relating to people through his analysis of the Bible by bringing it into this "humanity" context. Dawkins doesn't seem at all in tune with that part and he comes off as irrationally robotic and lifeless. I feel sorry for him.
He leads a 2-D life. A no-hoper.
Peterson misinterpreted the story and missed the point. How boring.
Dr Dawkins had one objective prior to this debate - to WIN. And that’s where a room for learning was darkened by the forces of the ego.
To say that a Christian like JBP aim is not not to win is deceitful. Just look at the way he talks. JBP is pretty aggressive in this one and have become very hardened in his views in my opinion. Even tho he talks like this when engaged his rhetoric involves subtle condescending tones. Not just this. Think he is under a lot of pressure and he is not seeing how it is changing him to the worse in terms of this. In a war, one armor up and lose the ability for vulnerability and change ideas and opinions.
Religion have a pretty dark story and unscientific views even today. Not just Christianity.
@@goranpersson473I've been watching Peterson for years, read his books, so on, and he's a tough old b*stard, but he isn't a condescending person. You're wrong on that.
@@goranpersson473 He literally just talks like that some people communicate differently
@@goranpersson473What you interpret as aggression to me seems more like passion.
Learn what? JP just spews uproven nonsense.
This is Science and Philosophy MMA! 👊🏽😁
Broooo this is actually a thought I had one time that debates are displays of wisdom and there are different sort of sub wisdoms that can play a role like scientific knowledge, theological knowledge, historical knowledge etc… and in order to compete in the display of wisdom which is debating you have to learn different kinds of sub wisdoms like how martial artists have to learn many martial arts to compete in mma because a pure boxing guy would get destroyed in a mma fight typically similar to how a pure history or philosophy kind of debater would get destroyed by a more diverse debater.
Science and philosophy is interconnected
Dr. Peterson,
After listening to your discussion with Dr. Dawkins, I have this to say. You are exceptionally insightful regarding life lessons of wisdom and extrapolations to various schools of thought that have even manifested throughout history in tandem with the growth of Christian conviction that you take out of the text of Scripture and I believe rightfully so, accurately. But I notice a crucial piece that you tend to miss, and I believe it will bring all your hesitations about Scripture to an end. When Jesus said He must be lifted up, He used a historical event to foretell another event. When Jesus went through the passion narrative and arose victorious, He explained why He did all that He did. The “belief” that Jesus commands from all people is defined succinctly in Hebrews 11:6, “believe God exists, believe He will reward you if you seek Him, and seek Him.” Seek God, and you will find Him. Don’t merely settle for principles that are true, seek the Person. You will find Him.
I pray God blesses you,
Joshua
“It’s always some kind of moral lesson, which leaves me cold”.
Well, the guy summarised it perfectly: anything beyond solid facts is unintelligible to him. He just doesn’t get abstract ideas. The two debaters were just in two very different levels, and while I think Peterson could play on Dawkins’ level, Dawkins was unable to rise to Peterson’s philosophical abstractions, which he just dismissed as “non-facts”.
I admire Jordan's patience with someone that is so stuck in their own way, that they will not try to understand others views and thoughts
He clearly understands them, he just doesn't agree with them. And if you pay a little attention, you'll notice that it's not Jordan who is being patient. In fact its laughable to even suggest that, as he is always the one talking 90% of the time.
Unless you admire how little patience he has, then you should have just said impatience.
Jordan Peterson is a true master - I don’t understand how anyone could not appreciate him.
Too flowery. Dawkins said it best at around 8-9minutes, “just say the world orbits around the sun”
Too flowery, Dawkins said it best around 8-9mins: “just say the earth orbits around the sun”
Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins - two power heads of their profession. Great Debate.
Oh there's a scripture I don't know where it is about how God closes off revelation to those not willing or interested in understanding or whose heart is not prepared yet to accept the deeper things. Something like that. Peterson is a brilliant mind and a sincere hearted person earnestly searching for the right answers. I just learned something from him here I never saw before. Thank you Jordan.
Several. Conscious seared with hot iron. Branded as well.1 Timothy 4:2
Lacking ears to hear and eyes to see. Isaiah 6:10,Jeremiah 5:21,Ezekiel 12:2,Matthew 13:15,Acts 28:27,Romans 11:8
Genesis 37:18-33 josephs' brothers sparing his life to sell him into slavery, leading to their salvation. There are more. God bless.
Romans 1
Peterson demonstrates a refreshing brilliance discussing the Old Testament and articulating from deep analysis critical meaning from some of what he refers to as "oldly peculiar" quotes from God and others. You will seldom see anyone like Richard Dawson at a loss for words in response to Petersons narrative... but this is one of them :)
Dr. Peterson is expending so much energy crafting these beautifully logical arguments. Dr. Dawkins' response, "I'm just not interested in that."
3:40 and this is why Christians teach each other not to 'live in fear'.
Brilliant talk - I know you sometimes talk and others seem to have no point of reference of understanding but keep doing it because some of us benefit greatly
Whoa! Love this!
As someone who has dabbled in atheism, have even read several of Dawkins books, there is nothing more annoying than those who are so sure of their atheism. I’ve met individuals who effectively made fun of others who not only believed in God but those who would say I don’t know. It was enough to point me back towards belief in God.
This reminded me of the Exodus series where Dennis Prager was so impressed that the 10 commandments could be divided into 2 groups of 5 that it could only have been from divine intervention? I don't think Dawkins would be much impressed with that either
Would love to hear Jordan's thoughts about the Israelites worshiping the snake years later in 2 Kings 18. Is that a parallel with modern Christians and the cross?
absolutely. Thats denominationalism.
why is this intense to watch? i feel like it would be the scariest thing to have 2 well-versed atheists against me in one sitting.
Alex is at least starting to understand Peterson's perspective. Dawkins is just way too stubborn.
Intense indeed. I find Jordan oppressive and overbearing in his manner and presentation.
Not unlike the acquaintance; who when speaking to you, invades your personal space. But worse, he dictates.
He is dictating his pearls of wisdom to one of the greatest minds on the planet - if I know the story and the pearls of wisdom Jordan is proffering - as if he just discovered it, then I’m sure Richard is fully aware...
Richard is so calm and rational. I worry for Jordan’s mental health.
@@johnsinclair2672 Dawkins is the representation of all atheists. Single-minded, with no imagination to speak of. That doesn't mean he's unintelligent mind you, only that beyond building a spaceship he has no understanding whatsoever of what those ticking, rotting, organic fleshbags that will travel in that spaceship are or what makes them tick or struggle to survive.
And please, do not worry about Peterson's mental health, though you are very kind to point out that you are worried, with no ulterior motive behind your claim to worry at all.
Are we watching the same thing? Maybe you're extremely sensitive to something?
@@creed22solar123, well, Alex is just there, who is am atheist and seems pretty different to Richard
The bronze serpent on the pole is a prefigurement of the Crucifix.
The serpent was also worshipped in ancient times
@@paulanderson3258the serpent also resembles my ding ding
And, God sent the fiery serpents as much as He gave Job boils. Cross referencing from other stories shows us that God's judgments are often letting the devil have his way. The sin and complaining caused God to remove His hand of protection and in came the serpents. Jordan's metaphorical lens can actually cause us to misread what's happening and learn the wrong lessons about God's character.
Yeah, that's quite clever, but there's one important aspect of Christianity that's never mentioned: People have been around for nearly 250,000 years before the bible showed up. And Anthropologists will tell you those ancient people were no different from you and me.
These are amazing talks! Humanity moving towards something better
The Bible states at Job 26:7 about God: "He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing"...That was written 3500 years ago. I'd say that was a startling scientific insight for its time, considering man wouldn't discover that for himself until around 300 years ago.
Not really. Space is not empty.
In Genesis it says God created two lights. One greater one to rule the day and a lighter one to rule the night.
That's a big issue considering there is only one Sun and that its light simply reflects off the moon.
@@lzaslanHave you been to the moon? How do you know? Many people say the Bible is fake because people lie but suddenly people are now truthful because they say they're scientists? They can't decide how old the earth actually is or even where the first homo sapiens come from but yeah...they're totally truthful because....science.
@@shanchan8247 I can rule out the moon having its own light because if it did, there would be a full moon every single night.
I am an ex believer that realized a lot of issues with the Christian religion. I don't defend science or its claims.
@@Hellish2050 What about between your ears? Did you fill it with worthwhile stuff? William Shatner; "Everything I had thought was wrong. Everything I had expected to see was wrong.
I had thought that going into space would be the ultimate catharsis of that connection I had been looking for between all living things-that being up there would be the next beautiful step to understanding the harmony of the universe. In the film “Contact,” when Jodie Foster’s character goes to space and looks out into the heavens, she lets out an astonished whisper, “They should’ve sent a poet.” I had a different experience, because I discovered that the beauty isn’t out there, it’s down here, with all of us. Leaving that behind made my connection to our tiny planet even more profound.
It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna . . . things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind. It filled me with dread. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral.
I learned later that I was not alone in this feeling. It is called the “Overview Effect” and is not uncommon among astronauts, including Yuri Gagarin, Michael Collins, Sally Ride, and many others. Essentially, when someone travels to space and views Earth from orbit, a sense of the planet’s fragility takes hold in an ineffable, instinctive manner. Author Frank White first coined the term in 1987: “There are no borders or boundaries on our planet except those that we create in our minds or through human behaviors. All the ideas and concepts that divide us when we are on the surface begin to fade from orbit and the moon. The result is a shift in worldview, and in identity.” Stay strong. God bless.
This makes so much more sense to me than the usual, “believe on Jesus and be saved,” narrative. I was Christian for 40 years until it broke me. I couldn’t believe in a god of conditional love, or a god that manipulates his people by making them feel like they owe him something. As a symbol and a real life lesson, Yeshua dying on the cross sounds like redemption to me, rather than buying a soul for a belief.
Please tell this to a girl who has a bone cancer. And tell this to a family whose baby has blood cancer. Redemption my ass... Making fun of may be...
You just bought into a more nuanced and palatable lie, free yourself before it’s too late.
The Thumbnail is awesome.
I have to agree with Richard, there’s nothing that astounding about the Gospel writers pulling literary inspiration from the Old Testament, especially when they’re deliberately trying to draw parallels to establish the Messianic nature of Jesus
I am glad I read Dawkins book a decade ago.
If I were Peterson, I would not have uploaded this clip to my own channel.
Jordan lives in a much broader world than Richard. Richard may be smart, but his perception of things is shallower than Jordan’s
@@Tittelintuure04 still a shallow vessel
@@Tittelintuure04 I’ve been a physicist for 35 years. Science is ultimately very shallow.
@@markr5251 yet equating analogies is prone to misleading conclusions. It doesn’t work in logic, in science, or in daily life. However, I do think it works well for human narratives, both cultural and internal. At least with honest qualifiers that convey the limitations of the analogy. You can say “yes it differs there, but the analogous parts I’ve identified hold true” and the meaningful discussion carries forward! Peterson often bites the bullet and says “this is *literally* is the same as that” and that can derail a conversation where the other party wants to stay grounded and stray from what sounds like flawed fantastical thinking.
I really don’t think it’s a requirement whatsoever for Peterson to do this, but alas it’s his style. I like it, but I get frustrated when he fails to meet at a common ground and loses his listener.
@@markr5251, I guess that’s why I didn’t know you
@@markr5251 I’ve been an astronaut for 55 years and the earth is flat.
Anyone who has difficulty with Jordan Peterson's take on the mythological should watch the film Life Of Pi. It's a beautiful film and a wonderful lesson in thinking about life symbolically as opposed to literally. Writer Robert Bly did some very important work in this area in his books Iron John and The Sibling Society as well.
NO PAIN NO GAIN...!
From what I understand from the conversation is that the Israelites were overly complaining about conditions of life, until when snakes were added to the picture, that was really when the the people really understood hardship and had something to worry about. Which then in the bronze statue, it was a reminder that all of the problems they had before, were imaginary until you actually are faced with actual dangers in life (kinda like how boredom, or miss aligned meaning can make life seem a lot worse then it is). Which is the understanding of traumas and in my opinion the true nature of behavior that is out to bite you.
Which to me the Dark Triad Traits beautifully assists the backing of religion through the 7 deadly sins, and the two ideologies aren't as different as one seems.
Isn’t the bronze serpent in Numbers, not Exodus?
You are correct.
JB was expectationally brilliant with the story of the serpent.
It's just a story though!
No, he wasn't.
Peterson should learn to be concise. He’s always too long-winded, like he is constantly amazed by his ability to string words together.
This is why I take excellent notes!!!!
I’m
Glad that Dawkins lived long enough to watch the world enter a place where we can define what a woman is
I’m not comparing myself to these guys, but I find that the more my eyes are opened and the more I understand about the world and existence the nuttier I become. The saying ignorance is bliss is pertinent.
I loved that dialogue. Excellent Jordan! God would be even more delighted to hear you affirm your convictions to those who ask. Then they would have to reason what contributing realities they are not considering to the propositions of Christianity. If God can make the world and mankind, having Himself be revealed through the womb of a woman is an ordinary feat. Astoundingly, I am persuaded that Richard was curiously interested in the Divine. He wants evidence for something miraculous. A personal testimony answers this inquiry.
Dr. Peterson, you should really interview Dr. James Tour. He's a Jewish convert to Christianity and is also one of the top 50 scientists in the world. He has his own UA-cam channel under his name. He has so much biblical knowledge and you should really consider interviewing him.
@Jordanpeterson ..I'm SO proud of you.!! Keep seeking!! "You can't reason with a fool."
The Moderator flubbed this horribly.
Jordan Peterson’s assertion was this:
“If you, Richard Dawkins, are criticizing individuals for taking the passion story as the ultimate guiding story -
and you offer no alternative guiding story in its place -
then why must you criticize those individuals to begin with; especially when their guiding story indeed produces tangible good in the world?”
And the Moderator framed it to Dawkins as:
“Peterson says this story is not just impressive, but rather it is actually super impressive.
Do you believe in God now?”
I'm rather uneducated but have been around a bit in my life. I remember debate between Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell. I think Dawkins is a human lite weight.
Although Pell was convicted as a paedophile
@@shimmeringreflection Why then was he released with no conviction?
Dawkins once said essentially that nothing could convince him of the existence of God existence. Debating someone is a pointless exercise. He also exposes himself as not a scientist but a fanatic.
I wish that Peterson would just own himself as a psychologist, and say 'hey l'm a psychologist and this stuff really interests me, I think that the bible is extremely fascinating and valuable and what's even more interesting to me, is that I can see this from a non-religious perspective - and through engaging with it academically and in my own life, quite ironically, it inspires something religious within me. And all I know is that the deeper I go with this stuff, the deeper the feeling of religiosity becomes. - did it historically happen? I don't know, but the possibility excites me'
Turns out a scientists brain is like a screwdriver and an intellectuals is like a good multitool. The screwdriver might be slightly more comfortable with a screw but can’t do fuck all else lol
This entire conversation was just Peterson artistically expressing his opinions, and Dawkins saying that he's unimpressed. When it comes to the pursuit of truth, it's clear which kind of attitude has an advantage over the other.
Wich one have?
Truth is not scientific fact
@@onmywayup94 True. The truth is undoubtedly too abstract to comprehend for the human brain. The truth of science is inconsequential compared to the knowledge that's out there. Those that restrict themselves only to scientific truths will never go beyond their self imposed limitations.
Peterson unquestionably ranks among the top intellectuals in the contemporary world, while Dawkins here confirms that his intellectual range is quite shallow and therefore tragically limited.
You guys should read the Church Fathers of the first millenium, they explain everyting that common people ask about the Bible.
"the Church Fathers"- May I know who exactly you are referring to? thanks.
@@yeewengchiang3295 - Look up "patristic". You'll find many examples, but I would personally suggest St. John Chrysostom and St. Irenaeus.
For a long time, I've liked Star Wars, but as I got older, I realized that Star Trek was actually my favorite. However, I've never been a big fan of The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. 🤷♂️
@Nexionlink999 You probably felt so smart after typing that out, huh?
@YHShinVH Have you noticed that arguing about which God is real is a lot like arguing about which ( Archon) ruler (Politician) you should "vote" for to become 'el'
ected?
💀
I don't understand why Jordan Peterson cant just give a straight answer to a question. I can't figure out what he's trying to convey most times.
The fact that dawkins is reluctant to believe the truth of the biblical stories doesn’t imply his lack of understanding. As he said, if there was evidence given to indicate agreement or prediction of a contemporary known scientific truth without coming back to a moral lesson, such as the earth revolving around the sun, he wouldn’t hesitate to humor the validity of that section of the biblical text. This notion has been echoed by other scientific thinkers, like Bill nye, to suggest that science can expand and retract the known truth where religion is unable to do so.
Dawkins needs to explain how it is that people who have not one iota of understanding of quantum physics can have profound wisdom and understanding of the bible. I was not taught how to understand the bible at all....but yet I understand it.
I think Dawkins is a scientist and Peterson is an artist/philosopher. Jordan is an artist of word. We really need scientists but we really need artists too. I dont support dichotomy between those two. We really need both of them and we need to understand their place and their value.
There is light in their words but there is no life in them
Excellent comparison
Somebody give the older man a hug.
"The serpent weaves a web of lies with its forked tongue in order to deceive, whilst it devours the deaf and blind." - Justin Trudea During Therapy
😂
Insider information!
Science vs Religion Is an old battleground of Western culture. Science can be proven right or wrong but the same cannot be said for the latter. It's always an impasse.
@@woodrowcall3158 I have not spoken about Mars or my belief of water on it and I don't think it's relevant to the debate.
@@Blackbooks78 I know that, it was just a question meant to illustrate a point.
They're not even contradictory. The issue is that people have an extremely poor understanding of both and pit them against each other.
@@StoneAgeWarfare Hell, I’d argue they are complimentary.
Peterson was thinking so hard he started flexing his cranium in physical form.
I enjoyed this
8:10 They do actually. Job says God suspends the earth over nothing and Isaiah says the earth is a circle which can be translated from the original Hebrew as a ball or sphere. Both statements were written when many thought the earth was flat and sat on an animal or a giant human e.g. Atlas.
Absolutely and many other facts that are now being discovered in quantum physics, molecular genetics etc You wonder why these guys ignore these facts.
The “serpent on the pole” represents “the destructive nature of sin.” It’s written: “God made Him (Christ) who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ (the IAM Who IAM) created our world and took responsibility for the “Fall of Man” at the Cross. Jesus became Sin for us. Now… does that mean everyone is healed of the curse of Sin. NO! Only those who look to Redemptive Work of the Cross where Jesus took our sins and imparted to us His Righteousness!
Consider this: If you miss the train by a millisecond and I miss the train by a million years, the consequence is the same; we have both missed the train are left under the destructive nature of sin. Healing for mind, soul and body comes via the Holy Spirit when we accept Christ as Lord and Savior (from Sin’s destructive work and ultimately, Hell!
Note people like Alice Cooper (Kiss) who realize the miraculous healing and redemptive work of Christ Jesus in their lives!
Great 10 minute video video containing 31 seconds of Dawkins speaking
Ones clearly been to the edge here and the other hasn't. Simple as that.
Reading some of these comments: I think yawl are being a bit unfair on Richard. He does have an interest in the humanities. He has spelled out many times his love of poetry and music, just not in the area that JP seems to be. I think Richard recognizes art for what it is. If there is to be a criticism in the context of this discussion; perhaps Richard isn't interested in some of the symbolism, that may underpin some forms of artistic expression. Perhaps he's a consumer of art and not that interested in art history. But that is putting words in his mouth and is just my take.
A wise genius scientist who has always linked science, history, politics, religion, psychology, and humanity. On the other hand, arrogant evolutionists claim to be scientists, but I have never heard him discuss science other than to blame faith and religion.
Spot on.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" you absolute muppet. Unironically saying evolutionist disqualified you from any intellectual discussion. It's just a strawman word made up by reality denying moron to try to paint basic facts as beliefs to hep them cope with their allergy of them. Facts aren't beliefs just because you don't like them
the chap in the grey suit seems completely out of his own depth, let alone anyone else’s. So many words to say next to nothing.
You might be curious about why God allowed the Pharaoh during the Exodus so much time to change his mind, yet he stubbornly refused. It wasn't until the death of his firstborn that he finally let the Israelites go, but even then, he didn't back down, which ultimately led to his demise in the sea. This situation feels similar to what we're seeing with Dawkins, who also seems unwilling to repent. It's hard to say what it would take for him to see the light. However, God might be trying to reach him through Dr. Jordan Peterson. If Dawkins dismisses that message, it wouldn't be surprising if his time runs out. Pray for Dawkins that he come to the knowledge of the truth of Christ before it is too late.
Dawkins can easily by convinced by the supernatural. That's exactly how Christ and the Apostles did it. That is the ministry of the Holy Spirit and Power. There is a limit to apologetics though it is very useful but seeing known scientific laws broken and your rigid worldview shattered is the most convincing approach. For example, lepers were cleansed, the lame walked, the blind saw, the dead was raised by Christ and His Apostles throughout church history and the same mandate was given to believers. The problem is the Church (particularly in the West) lost its power and the consequence is the great falling away.
Sitting across from Jordan Peterson must feel to Dawkins like he’s having another stroke. If I were fortunate enough myself to sit across from him I’d be sure to bring a bottle of Newman’s Own to make it palatable.
These 2 people (both very worthy) will never see eye to eye. Different stages of growth.
I'm surprised they agreed to this sit-down, I was under the impression Dawkins despised JBP
It’s kind of obvious that he does 😅
Stayed committed to the Holy Ghost. Even though the devil is who I needed most
Prof if you can address reading the Bible from revelations to Genesis, since it was initially written in Hebrew, such that Genesis is the last book you read, and revelation the first, the most important book must be revelation because it reveals the truth
Out of the two, I think JP is that one that could have adapted to RD, but he seemed to have missed all the signs that RD was just looking at the door and wishing it was over.
Winnie the Pooh said to the bleating sheep who believed him, "If you abide in my words, you are my friends indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." They answered him, "We are the descendants of the flock and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, 'You will be made free'?" Pooh answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits mischief is a slave to mischief. And a slave does not abide in the meadow forever, but a friend abides forever. Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."
Its quite interesting that how people react , I was skimming through all the comments in Jordons channel and Alex channel , interesting thing is everybody is defending what they believe in , Its clear that people watching Alex channel has a more tendency of defending Richard while people who sees Jordon has a tendency of defending Jordon.
Its like a clash between philosophers and Materialists.
I found the whole debate interesting, and Fully understand how both of them were talking from their perspective.
"I am a naive literalist" - Richard Dawkins
I don't need any one text to validate or give me a understanding of spiritual reality and of human existence and condition. Yet I do see it in many forms of religious texts there's a mirroring and some have different qualities that enhance others. I just find it odd even if it's just a manifestation within our own consciousness, people seem to ignore a metaphysical reality that's applicable to life.. I know it to be true from direct experience but I understand that's far and few between that can honestly genuinely say that..
Anyone listened to the 30 minutes behind the paywall? What was talked about?
Can you please make video about short form content Jordan