Alex deserves a lot of credit for facilitating this exchange in a fair manner. He does a really good job of steelmanning both Jordan and Dawkins' respective positions, and grants each of them an equal opportunity to elaborate.
Myths are real the same way numbers are real. Numbers are not material objects that exist in spacetime. They exist as abstractions. Myths are the same in a way.
8:42 Jordan Peterson is a psychologist and a therapist by profession and does not prioritize myth. He prioritizes consciousness and psychology and usually looks at all things as to how they relate or contain to that. He prioritizes consciousness and psychology and usually looks at all things at how they relate or pertain to that.
My father is a rare person who is very old and orthodox hsidim setmir, he speaks MANY languages very well, including older versions of hebrew arabic has studied talmud extensively.When I was 14 or 15 ( I'm nearly 40 now) he was asked to take a look at the dead sea scrolls. I thought it was a huge honor and when he got back from his trip and I asked him about it he said "It's just a bunch of old men arguing about weather or not those symbols mean : virgin, young woman, desirable woman, unmarried woman, fertile woman etc etc." And it seems they're STILL arguing about it.
Sounds like they all apply simultaneously but Joseph was going to divorce her quietly because of the virginity issue and not because she was desirable in her feminine attributes.
Have you ever played the children's game Telephone? Look how much words get distorted even when people are trying to keep it the same in just a small group over 10 minutes. Now imagine thousands of years and dozens or even hundreds of generations. Even with book-keeping languages change over time. All history as we interpret it is just a game of telephone in a sense
And that's where I think the Vatican did humanity a great disservice throughout time. They decided which books to keep. Which books to burn. What to books to hide from humanity and what books to give them as religion. All the while keeping archives of books not only in written in Hebrew, but books written in Latin in their little coffers. Books that probably clarify most of the argument. Gate keepers.
As a Christian, I generally have a lot more respect for Peterson than Dawkins, but I really wish JP would answer RD’s question. He knows what he’s asking, but he keeps tiptoeing around it. The truth is that both of them are simply cultural Christians. Peterson more so, but I believe Christianity is both morally and factually true. Peterson believes the former but not the latter, and Dawkins believes neither.
I agree. However I don’t believe your assessment is accurate. “He [Jordan] is preoccupied with having to respond to the “follow up”. The answer being “ yes, the virgin birth did historically happen”, follow up: “then prove it as fact”. The only way outside of faith, would be to have Yeshua’s physical body here, take a sample of his cell(s), then pinpoint in which ever way those missing chromosomes from a natural father is filled in. Because if ANY of us could do that, or 😅Yeshua himself was willing to leave the throne…and I don’t mean that proverbially - those 23 chromosomes replaced by some divine material would NOT be of ANY similitude of a mortal man’s dna.
@@thinkoutful We speak English. And in English, his name is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The only name the wicked hate. Use it, and stop being a Judaizer.
@8:42 “Jordan prioritizes myth and I prioritize fact”. This statement is a false dichotomy. Jordan also prioritizes fact, but he is willing to acknowledge the possibility of biblical accounts of events being true beyond what can be currently explained through known facts.
I think he more believes the meaning that can be derived from such stories is more true than it being literally true, a meta reality, a hyper truth, an overarching motif. This is why he ducks and dodges this question so much. He more highly values the meaning than whether it is literally true. To say he does not believe, believes, or does not know, each of these statements are loaded with connotations he does not care for.
That doesn’t make sense at all 😂 Facts are facts. Making claims that CANT be proven or disproven CANNOT be facts. They’re hypothesis and you shouldn’t base you’re entire belief system on the hypothesis of 2000 year old myths
@@Vilutusk What you say is possible as "facts" is actually determined by your experience of what you think is possible. Going to the moon is not something people thought was even possible and someone could argue even 300 years ago that going to the moon is a myth, even now people don't believe the moon-landing footage is real. There are many things people believe in that they haven't proven for themselves. People believe in the big bang, yet have not proven or disproven it themselves, they believe it based on the trust they have for our teachers and modern scientists. Same thing for Evolution. It doesn't mean these things aren't true or anything, but people believe these things based on faith/trust of others, usually teachers and scientists (who are like our modern day priests).
Peterson: *uses comprehensive scientific principles and objectively valuable citations to make a nuanced point about divinity* Dawkin: bUt wUz mArY fUeKt iN hEr pOoZy?!?!?!?!?
It could simply be the fact that he's old now. It's very hard to take in new and complex concepts when you're in your 80s. I kind of wish this conversation would've happened 10 or so years ago. I think JBP has become less articulate as well.
It is more hubris than intelligence because he's so busy worshipping himself that he can't fathom being wrong and smart people know what they don't know or can't know instead of talking out of their asses like they have all the answers...Plainly said he's not God even tho he walks around as if he is and JBP at least is smart enough to say "I don't know..."
Seriously 🎯 I'm glad JP is not overly concerned with tripping and crossing Dawkins with his hypocrisy as you've pointed out. Dawkins is tortuously smug. Especially for any True scientist that understands the obvious limitations and ever evolving enterprise of the scientific realm.
@@BudVidz0 no, it usually only comes up if witnessing to someone that speaks Hebrew. In Isaiah 7:14 they will claim the word for virgin (almah) is misinterpreted. If you don't speak Hebrew they usually won't listen to you, only Jewish believers in Jesus. (Yeshua)
What has that got to do with anything?!! Can you hear yourself? You completely ignored the point, as did Jordan. There is no evidence that it happened. Therefore there is no reason to believe it. What do you as an adult in the modern age not get about that?
@Smellindamix There's no proof that it happened, but there is evidence. You don't feel that the evidence is sufficient, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
@@l000tube it depends on how you understand faith. If you understand it in the protestant way (Luther said that "Reason is the devil's greatest whore" xd) then you get people believing the universe is 6000 years old. If you understand it in the catholic/orthodox way (which is the original way), then you have a belgian priest discovering the Big Bang and the Church inventing modern science. Faith isn't "believing without proof", it is trust, and to trust something you need evidence.
That's because he too is evolving. Alex is not the same way, even in his debates as he was before. I even heard him describe himself as agnostic as regards to belief in a recent interview and I found that quite interesting.
Truly a captivating discussion. I have tremendous respect for Alex O’Connor for how genuinely he seems to search for the truth, I appreciated how he held Jordan’s feet to the fire and got a straight answer out of him. I also appreciate how Jordan pointed out to Prof. Dawkins the assumption being made in all scientific endeavors, that there is a logical and discernible pattern to the properties of the universe, and as Prof Peterson points out, this is uniquely a Judeo-Christian phenomenon. Can’t wait to watch the whole sit-down.
This was painful. JP can’t bring himself to declare his belief in the Virgin birth because that would mean declaring himself as a Christian. For those of us who do believe, it’s a no brainer. Yes, we believe in the miraculous birth, death and resurrection of Christ.
While I disagree with you that Jesus was born of a virgin, I agree with you that Peterson is a coward who can't answer simple yes/no questions. Why? He has created a brand for himself that Christian men are attracted to, and he's too afraid to jeopardize his success with that group. In reality, he doesn't believe in any mythology at all.
Jordan Peterson is a Christian I don't understand how anyone could get that confused. Why do you believe in something that you don't have any evidence to believe in?
I see the opposite happening; Peterson is openly and proudly a Christian, but he has no way of reconciling his knowledge of science and biology with the "miracle" birth, which may be accepted only as a matter of faith. (Here "faith" not as a belief in absence of evidence, but a step further; as a belief in contradiction of evidence) This may be especially troubling to some given the firm, science-based distinctions Peterson has supported with regard to the sexes in context of the gender identity debates. I feel he should have just admitted that he has no way of justifying the claim outside faith, and since the question has little bearing on his own reasons for being a Christian or how he lives his life, the tension with science/biology does not trouble him. I suspect he does not take this tack because "Will to Believe" was published 1896 and JP has probably studied all the criticisms against of it, and wishes to grapple with the issue in his own way rather than retread work done by others. In doing so he flounders about but I respect that he published this video and see that decision as acknowledgement that such floundering is part of the experience of a person seeking a moral life, for which I think some degree of faith (not necessarily Christian) is absolutely necessary. Have a wonderful day!
No. Dawkins, as always, is trying to help his interlocutor see things a bit more clearly by slapping down Petersons abstract nonsense with clarity and science. There is only 1 brilliant mind here, and its not Peterson. The first few sentences of this clip tells you everything you need to know.
@@FlawlessP401 It is clarifying, when Peterson tries to tell us that fictional writing is truth and Dawkins reminds him that, by definition, fiction is made up, then that is clarifying. Maybe not to you, but to anyone who likes rationality and reason, it is. As a Peterson fan, someone who likes the safety and comfort of opinions and fictions as 'truths' then you're not going to like it when Dawkins attempts to correct you, your 'feels' are going to get in the way.
Weird dream about JP last night. He was going to his car (some orange American type sports car yet more practical somehow) nothing definite. I was flying above sort of a bit threatening and he clocked me saying something like ‘come down or don’t at all’. It was a bit of a meet your hero dream which I haven’t had since very young. Ended up chatting and it was all cool. Strange and even stranger I feel the need to share!!! Bizarre
@@lakshen47 Yes, but they don't function in absolute contrast to eachother (VS). The whole "your left brain is more rational, and the right brain more emotional" kind of crap is debunked. Most of the time your brains cooperate. So calling one side of the discussion "right brained" and the other "left brained" or calling the discussion "left-brain vs rightbrain" makes absolutely zero sense.
Jordan is terrible at articulating his thoughts on this. Dawkins wants to say that the stories of the Bible as propositions of history are literally false because the events to which they purport to refer didn’t occur and Jordan wants to say that the stories of the Bible reflect deep truths about humanity. These are two different things completely. Jordan all but admitted that both positions are likely simultaneously true - Bible as history book is false and Bible as a reflection of human nature and morality is “true”. Why that took over an hour is beyond me.
the Bible especially in later parts of the stories actually has real historical people that have existed in the past. I would even say that even Moses existed. the story of the Exodus happened right before the Bronze Age Collapse and of course the myth has to be judged in a much more realistic manner. only a tiny fraction of ancient Jews escaped slavery from Egypt. and Egypt was too busy fighting the Sea People or so other war against a powerful enemy. so these Jews lead by Moses escaped. the Bible is of course full of metaphors. a literal interpretation of the Bible is stupid. and Richard Dawkins reads the Bible literally. that's his mistake. I'm not all that religious myself but I see militant atheism as ridiculous nonsense. so middle ground in which ancient Greek and Roman philosopher actually did believe in a God but not so much in literal interpretation of myths and stories is the way forward. there are definitely very good moral truths and lessons in the Bible that should be respected. the Bible is a moral philosophical book. a book in which a moral framework teaches humanity how to live a good moral life. and I also don't have a problem with the existence of a God or intelligent design. atheist explanation of the universe is what exactly? that everything in the universe is just random chemicals and particles of dust that exist for no reason? many scientists like to mention dark matter orthe void before time itself existed. religious people also say God is timeless. so I see no problem to believe in a God that is powerful that exists beyond physical materialism. Richard Dawkins and atheists put human scientific limits on what a God can be or what it can do.
The question of the virgin birth is an excellent place to launch a debate about religion because it really cuts to the heart of the atheist position. Atheists want to say that - obviously - a virgin birth is unscientific, just as they want to say that - obviously - the story of Noah’s ark is unscientific. And while there may be any number of unscientific Christians who believe in such stories uncritically, the question for JP is not whether they are true in a sense that science can address. For Dawkins, this is tantamount to admitting that they are not true in any meaningful sense at all. And many will want to stop listening at that point, but this is where the real debate begins. JP is not a Flat-Earther. He acknowledges and respects the contributions of science. He certainly understands the basic science of human reproduction perfectly well. He only seems to be dodging the question of the virgin birth because he suspects - with good reason - that it is not well formed, and he doesn’t want to answer in a way that would trivialize his position. And what is his position? It’s that there is a sense - which is more important than the banal scientific one - that Christ was born of a virgin. How can this be explained? Well, obviously not in a way that would satisfy those who demand a scientific account. But JP is concerned with the function of myth. He believes that myth provides an account of reality that science is not equipped to address. Indeed, he believes that the myths underlying Christianity provide the essential grounds for science. It is a subtle and complex notion that takes a lot of effort to unpack.
It was a boring conversation, really. Their respective positions could be summarized in a couple sentences each and if that had been done they’d probably largely agree with on another on most of it.
For an atheist, the question about the validity of the virgin birth couldn't possibly be answered without themselves allowing God to exist temporarily for the purpose of potentially having the question answered.
a virgin birth shouldn't be that insane to someone who believes that life can from non-life and, a birth coming from a biological body is already better than coming from nothingness. the atheistic realm could write it off as a 'freak accident' or 'scientific anomaly' but there are multiple ways that even an atheist can believe in a 'virgin' birth, in the sense that virgin implies the lack of fornication or conventional sperm
@@slimblank9280 aren't you tired of those boring clichés 😅 try saying something novel and constructive. I hardly hear Atheist talk in those terms... we've gone past that my friend. Having said that, the question remains. Can all truths be verified only through the Scientific method? And if so, how does the Scientific method validate itself?
Debating the existence of God... is Godly. Doing and saying things that seek to improve things is proof of the existence of God in men and women for the pure simple fact that they're seeking to do good.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” - this goes, sadly, for JP too. As much as I am on “his side” in this conversation, he darts and desperately tries to dodge answering clearly the question on the virgin birth. As Christians, it’s a simple yes it’s true. It isn’t a scientific question for it was an act of God intervening. It can’t be explained by science. Praying JP fully surrenders to Christ and stops battling the truth like this.
I agree. However I don’t believe your assessment is accurate. “He darts and desperately….dodge…” isn’t quite his position. He is preoccupied with having to respond to the “follow up”. The answer being “ yes, the virgin birth did historically happen”, follow up: “then prove it as fact”. The only way outside of faith, would be to have Yeshua’s physical body here, take a sample of his cell(s), then pinpoint in which ever way those missing chromosomes from a natural father is filled in. Because if ANY of us could do that, or 😅Yeshua himself was willing to leave the throne…and I don’t mean that proverbially - those 23 chromosomes replaced by some divine material would NOT be of ANY similitude of a mortal man’s dna.
I dont hear JP professing himself as wise in a pompous manner. Or even in a banal sense. He seems to humble himself quite often and he is being humble and authentic when he admits that he doesn't know if the virgin birth happened. I don't think either he or Dawkins are fools.
@@None-lt5lwtrue, that would be foolish, unless this "human" was special. Now look at the gospels, the claims, miracles, the resurrection, the church, the domination of pagans and how that happened (not through violence)... then, and only then, the case gets compelling. Evidence and reason will lead to faith
Nobody is born a believer. No Popes were born believers. Neither were any Imams, nor any Archbishops. Nobody reading this post was born a believer. All believers eventually became so because other people convinced them, without offering a shred of empirical evidence, that their own chosen deity is real, while countless others aren’t. Not all religions can simultaneously be correct, and no one religion has a more plausible claim of validity than any other. Religions have had many beneficial qualities for the human race, but most of the world’s conflicts derive from the fact that people cannot agree on the correct way to worship a common god whose existence is nothing but conjecture.
They kept changing the subject to try to pin the belief of a miracle on Jordan and then discount anything else he might have to say. While Jordan's words may have fell on deaf ears, I gained a lot of insight personally.
@@larrylucid5502 JP also stated himself that he "adamantly" tried to get a client to take pharmaceuticals. A clinical psychologist/professor who isn't even aware of the well known dangers of benzodiazepines, yet pushes pharmaceuticals onto others, has questionable competency at the very least; can you grasp how dangerous this type of incompetence is within the mental health world?
He almost certainly eats a complete diet now. We'll never know, because the illusion of eating beef exclusively and giving non-answers to yes/no questions is on-brand for this type of liar.
Ngl seems like a waste of time debating whether or not the exact story of the bible truly happened. I'm not religious but I won't deny the impact that Christianity had on building a better world.
Yeah, you know, except for thise tiny little things like… the crusades, or witch trials, of southern slavery, or keeping minorities and women under control…. You know, just the small stuff. Ya ingrate.
Why does he claim the virgin birth is a mistranslation? It is not. Look at the Septuagint, translated from the Hebrew 200 years before Christ. It says clearly "a virgin." Dawkins should get educated on the ancient texts or stop making definitive pronouncements as if he were an expert.
Faith and your inner enlightenment are my answers. Human minds have a difficult time compartmentalizing spiritual experiences versus "Scientific" analysis. We each are born with the Light of Christ and learning to keep and grow that light is the human journey.
"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish." 2 Nephi 9:28
Your videos always amaze me with their professionalism and depth of treatment of the topic. Thank you for your dedication and passion for creativity!🐭🫣🚕
There is a difference between a five year old who believes in God and a fifty year old who believes in God. If you don't know the difference, then you are the former
Jordan criticizes claims that men can have children as ridiculous, and I agree. But if he then claims a virgin can give birth, he is being equally as ridiculous.
How do you know that in 100 or even 1000 years people can find a way to do virgin births? Going to the moon is not something people thought was even possible and someone could argue even 300 years ago that going to the moon is a myth, even now people don't believe the moon-landing footage is real, people ignore nowadays that was is understood to be 'possible' is based on your own personal experience, but who's to say that something outside what you think is normal/possible could occure such as a virgin birth?
@@JasmineSinclair-i3n The way you framed your original statement isn't even the way the Bible explains it. It doesn't say that virgins can give birth. I think you are also just trying to sound clever, but actually sound rather ordinary. The Bible makes the assumption that you will think it's ridiculous, which is why it's called a miracle. Furthermore, if you had a thorough knowledge of the texts then you would realize that sin travels through the seed of Adam. If Christ had been conceived through normal means, he would still have original sin. Edit* (Original sin refers to Adam's first sin in the garden; the curse of which extends to all generations after)
If you were a devout Christian you would know better than to ask the question. The entire enterprise is predicated on Jesus being the Son of God. If He is not the Son of God then His sacrifice for our sins is for naught.
I maintain that science is the application of specific epistemological arguments to metaphysical questions. It's value as an enterprise is born out in improvements it has made possible to our standard of living. But examining the foundational philosophy, it's not even claiming to be able to answer every question there is to ask. Science is a powerful to for testing falsifiable hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to understand what is _True_ is a different undertaking, one I'm not sure we're equipped to succeed at, in any definitive way.
Science is a tool, not a god. And the science we have are known as the natural sciences. What created our existence/cosmos was beyond nature... Supra-natural and used science that didn't follow the rules our existence holds by.
Science is more dimensional than you describe but okay, your statements are fine. However, what do they have to do with the conversation from the video, really?
If you are Catholic and believe God created the universe, heaven and Adam from dust - then the ability for God to orchestrate a virgin birth is child’s play. The simple answer is ‘yes’ it was a virgin birth. Science, from that point of view is simply the human approach to understand what God already made.
I would like you to discuss your ideas of the bible with academic biblical sholars such as Bart Ehrman who has had some very intresting conversations with Alex O’Connor
Because that's the wrong question. The correct question is "What does the Virgin Birth mean?" JP should have pointed this out at the beginning. I know he knows this (he taught me, somehow, so...).
@@PotatoBTD6 There's no such thing as a wrong question. Jordan Peterson could simply answer the question, and then follow up by saying "we should be asking this question". JBP is right to point out that we should focus on the meaning of mythological stories. But he's wrong in thinking there's some hidden motive in the more literal-based questions and not taking those questions at face value.
probably the same reason why dawkins says that we can't say the word time when it comes to the singularity and then people should ask a physicist rather than him. although there are physicists who are theist, and dawkins seems to say that theists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to god, yet simultaneously says that he doesn't know enough to talk about physics, to the point that he refers people to physicists, it's a circular argument
In my opinion, JP wants to believe the accounts are true because there is so much usefulness in many things the Bible says but the supernatural aspect of it makes his scientific side prevent him from saying they are facts, lest he starts to believe all supernatural events other people claim happened.
The truth is, it’s of no importance whether those things actually happened, and this partly explains why Peterson has always avoided (or, when asked, spoke about their interpretation instead) such questions. What he actually means is that each story has a certain meaning behind it. In a sense, the Bible, in his eyes, is similar to a selection of fairytales (if you like), each giving you a valuable lesson. Those who constantly try to poke him understand it, but they fail to see Peterson’s motive. Therefore, it’s more about their attitude towards Jordan rather than their search for the truth. The latter is upsetting
The problem is the two are distinct ideas. The sciences work because they follow the laws of nature, hence natural sciences. God is outside creation , beyond nature, hence supra-natural. The problem/trap that Peterson and many who debate on the side of God is that the initial debate where the atheists say to the other to agree that everything existence within the confines of a universe that held by the rules of natural science. As soon as the other agrees, they automatically lost
Jordan Petersen is not a believer and people must just realize that. He is nothing close to the real heroes we have in the apostles and the missionaries who have stated clearly what they believe. Paul says this outright in 1 Corinthians 2: For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. If he cannot even confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and that he is God, His only begotten Son, and if he cannot accept that it's not just a story--it is the Truth, then he has no business making Christians pander to his pseudoChristian moralism. JORDAN : CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH THE LORD JESUS AND BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART THAT GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD AND YOU WILL BE SAVED!!!
Science is only one way of knowing the world. It is not the ONLY way. Science is not truth. One fundamental characteristic of science is that it’s self-correcting. The truth is beyond the reach of the scientific epistemology. The ontological assumptions of science also differs from theological assumptions. Dawkins seems not to be open to any other ways of knowing except for science. That’s why it’s difficult for JP to communicate with Dawkins. Read more and be more humble. You may perceive more.
How do atheists reconcile commemorating Christmas, i.e.: a celebration of the highest with the most beautiful music in existence - choral music? A choir of voices and music inspired by and directed towards the highest ideal, gifting, birth/rebirth, charity. Is it unnecessary hogwash that has usurped the winter solstice? Is it better off replaced by a usurper of Saint Nicklaus installed by short-sighted money grabbers to ditch the choral music in favour of the canned repetitive music playing through the malls the day after Halloween?
6:00 yes, the virgin birth really happened. So did the resurrection. These are literal events. God is a literal being, a Spirit. I see no reason for anyone to call themselves a Christian if they don't believe, literally, in the basic tenets of Christianity. These would all be simple things for a quad-omni God, so the problem here is that none of these ppl believe in God.
The way I see it is that Dawkins looks at facts and how we can make scientific advancements. He doesn't seem to care about anything else. Peterson values that obviously, but in terms of temperament he is a lot more interested in people and how we as humans navigate and understand the world around us. I just don't think Dawkins cares about that at all and I think that's a damn shame. Scientific facts is great and all, but how does quantum physics help regular people trying to get by and survive in life. How does quantum physics help people confront their anxieties and depressions and existential dread? These people don't give a shit about quantum physics nor would even care to understand it, when they are just trying to get by in life, trying to live a meaningful life. And this is important if you want to understand the current culture war we are in. Richard Dawkins had a pretty wealthy upper class upbringing, who was a gentry (basically an aristocrat) just below the nobility class while Jordan comes from a very poor working class background from northern Alberta. This is why they are so different and it is an important fact. Jordan is a psychologist and has helped people in therapy for years, of course he would have more interest in myths and metaphysical narrative since storytelling is what the regular human beings on this planet are interested in because they are trying to find meaning in their existence and trying to navigate their lives through depression and anxiety. Dawkins just does not have an interest in that, and his work has very little value to regular people, when Jordan is trying to bridge the two types of thinking together so that we can somehow find an answer or solution to this current culture we are in. To me storytelling will always have more value than just random set of scientific facts, facts are useful when we use them to form a narrative that would move forward the advancements of human life. They are all meaningless in a vacuum. Storytelling is what connects people to the metaphysical. The masses are interested in movies, video games, non fiction books, etc. Not random scientific facts. And that is the case for good reason. Scientific facts have value but they are meaningless without a story. Myth and facts need some sort of marriage otherwise society crumbles. And this is why, at least to me, Peterson doesn't care about questions when asked if he believes in God, virgin birth or the resurrection. Because it doesn't matter if they were real events. It's the symbolism that matters, which has changed the course of human history.
This was an excellent analysis, I hope more people read this. I hate when people try to invalidate people based on things that aren't relevant to the point they're making, but the class and upbringing issue here is very much relevant. Dawkins has always had the *luxury* of being flippant and dogmatic because his world was safe and secure due to his family position in life. When you grow up without absolutes, and your life isn't stable and your future isn't guaranteed, you don't have the *luxury* of being able to deal with the world as though you can understand anything you wanted to if you just read a paper or conducted a little experiment. Atheists have a terrible problem of creating dogmatic echo chambers and not being open at all to trying to understand that which sustained people who have been through hardship trying to make sense of it all. I'm not saying that atheists haven't known hardship, but I'm saying their intolerance of even hearing anything that they don't deem "scientific", when most of them don't even study science they just read pseudo science papers online, leaves a huge blind spot in their experience and understanding of not just the world but the human condition.
Dawkins is a superficial thinker. And Peterson a confused one (purposefully so). They spent the entire conversation talking past each other unnecessarily. Dawkins must admit that he is not interested in facts per se but only facts about certain things. To distinguish between facts and symbols as he did makes no sense because as Jordan would reply there are facts about symbols too - about which Dawkins seems to have no interest. As for Jordan, he simply can’t bring himself to answer whether he believes the stories of the Bible really took place in a literal sense.
This is why i think peterson is not a believer, becsuse he is afraid of looking foolish, if you can believe the first 4 words in the bible, you can believe the whole thing! Do you? Or not
Could All powerful God do a miracle outside the bounds of logic. Obviously, a all powerful God could. So, it should be answered from that perspective. In the end, this sums up Christianity. They are either all wrong or they are all right. At its essence, Christianity is based on a faith concept.
Dawkins has always discussed the historicity of Christian mythology; historicity for Jordan Peterson isn’t that important, it’s the implicit meanings of the mythology.
That may be true if it is true it needs to explicitly stated, Jordan is a modern day priest he articulates the symbolic meaning present in all things , this isn’t profound …one can ramble on about the profound symbolic nature a screw and bolt . Just because there is meaning present in does not make it legitimate , there is meaning in all things as the divine is present in all.
Dr. Peterson, it is so impressive to me that you are willing to test your ideas in this way. You truly tread the delicate difficult path for the benefit of others. You are my intellectual hero.
For the ones giving Pete the faith spiel.. understandable, but I don't think most understand the tactful snares that are unleashed early on, that have the sole intention of defeating Petersons entire side of any conversation. Good work Pete , unbelievable.
Hello Jordan, In one of Mikhaias podcast episodes, the interviewer asked her, “How is it your parents raised you?” Mikahlia said, “ My dad always treated me as if I could do more.” That's biological evolution itself, in human physiological terms right there. Is one thing to have a silent underlying condition of EXCELLENCE, but imagine actually REWARDING instead of just an underlying condition. Evolutionarily animalia speaking; this is exactly which species are able to reproduce and why. Though that may only even be to ONLI conscious Beings that can have a reward system
JBP is the wisest thinker of our time, always a pleasure to listen to him. Great comparison with quantum physics, we don't understand how two particles can move at the same time even though they're millions of light years away. The same way we don't understand the Virgin Birth or other miracles.
Apples and oranges. To date there has been no good evidence for any miracle, anywhere at any time. Zero, nothing. We as a species are actually figuring out deep scientific questions. We are not substanciating claims about miracles.
@@Esco87 What evidence do YOU personally have of how two particles 2000 miles away are interacting? In fact, what evidence do you have as for how the particles of my tiny pinky finger are interacting with each other? Please, answer me.
If you think what JBP is saying is profound, you should also check out Jonathan Pageau and the early Christian Church father's like St Maximos the Confessor.
@@fredheimuli5913 And Microbiology and Computer Science is a miracle, glory to God. They are common miracles that happen day to day so they aren't so significant, but miracles happen all the time. Jonathan Pageau (Jordan Peterson's close friend) has a video on this you guys may like: Jonathan Pageau - What Is a Miracle?
It was a superficial thing to say. There are also facts about symbols. What he should have said is that he is mainly interested in the whether or not the stories of the Bible literally occurred rather than what they have to teach while still acknowledging that said teachings could, in a sense, be true or false themselves.
I get what they both say, but it’s like they’re on two fundamentally different wavelengths in terms of how they approach and think about the world. Both are of incredible value, but for different purposes.
The only thing thats obvious here is that the question about how we deal with the oppression of women within the strictily "factual" paradigm was never answered... unfortunately the moderator jumped in
How can Richard Dawkins prioritize fact when in order to live, he also needs to have a set or morals to guide him. Morals he's arriving at that can't be factual by being poked, prodded or put in a petri dish. So he's taking a leap of faith there.
I know there's a deeper context to this discussion here, but I am more annoyed about Dr.Dawkins error - which he speaks in great confidence. We know it was not a translation error. Alma (the term used in Isaiah) can mean young woman and it can mean virgin. And the Jewish rabbis - who did not know Yeshua or the "Christian movement"- who labored over translating the Hebrew scriptures into the Septuagint centuries before Yeshua had no problem translating alma into parthenos (kione greek for virgin).
Dawkins is so smug, arrogant and self righteous. Calling the sacrifices referred to in the Bible as disgusting, he shows his ignorance of the deep theology rooted in these stories even though he proclaims to know the Bible and the "hymns"... Yes, he's a theologian because of this... It's possible to be an atheist and still have respect for others beliefs, but in Dawkins there seems to be none. Dr. Peterson is very patient dealing with these two and does a terrific job defending his positions. He, on the other hand shows great humility and patience with these antagonists.
I mean you have to remember that this man has been called a liar n fraud by people who believe the Bible is both scientifically n historically accurate. And the only reason they have to disagree with proven science is through a religious text, text that even I’m Jordan Peterson agrees are myths
Because of my faith in the unseen and unknown in the natural man, I believe God’s word. It’s because I’ve been ‘born again’ and the Holy Spirit gives me His wisdom
It seemed to me that what JP was saying was that the evidence for the Virgin birth can only be found through the resulting outcome of the event. No one was monitoring Mary day and night prior in order to provide some accountability of the assertion. He’s looking at the “story” and the basis on which everything flows from the acceptance of the event to ascertain its value and merit.
Jordan is terrible at articulating his thoughts on this. Dawkins wants to say that the stories of the Bible as propositions of history are literally false because the events to which they purport to refer didn’t occur and Jordan wants to say that the stories of the Bible reflect deep truths about humanity. These are two different things completely. Jordan all but admitted that both positions are likely simultaneously true - Bible as history book is false and Bible as a reflection of human nature and morality is “true”. Why that took over an hour is beyond me.
Yes, that accent is real. Of course there is a broad range of understandability. For some in St. John’s it’s virtually undetectable. In other areas, it is very rapid and incomprehensible. Newfoundland English is a mix of rural West Country English (Southwestern English counties of Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, and surrounds), somewhat similar to what many would call a pirate accent, and mostly western Ireland accents. The Newfoundland accent varies greatly, traditionally, depending on where the people came from when the community was established and how isolated that community was.
I love both Dawkins and Peterson. I can see where each side is coming from. I think the two of them together with their respective fields of expertise could probably invoke some pretty good questions and provide interesting answers after a good, long debate. Not even being recorded and for entertainment, but just alone, the two of them, trying to sift through mythology, history, and metaphor. I hope to see more.
Christianity besides facts it demands faith on the impossible. Now it takes even more faith to believe that all that we term reality happened by happenstance
@@Olivertarismo there is evidence. You can watch my short video about it. I summarised it in less than 60 seconds (but I could speak about evidence of his resurection for hours)
The problem is that when converting to the factual side of the story and saying the stuff with jesus wasnt real then mythological power it expressed over the souls of many millions even today in the most beauitful and maybe objectively best way possible also becomes invalidated, fooling people into believing that being evil is okay because it is logical
Short answer: Christ was born of a virgin. Details on how and why can be found in Grudems Systematic Theology for ex. or in EXPOSITIONAL sermons on this topic by RC Sproul or John MacArthur.
Jordan, I think both you and Dawkins are somewhat correct here (although I fundamentally agree with you over Dawkins). Mary was not literally a virgin, she was a highly initiated Essene. Although a great deal of mysticism was involved in the 'virgin birth,' conception in the traditional sense was involved... I recommend you look into esoteric Christianity, specifically Rudolf Steiner. His
Wernher von Braun spoke about his inspiration to create projectiles after a childhood viewing of 'La Voyage Dans La Luan' in the cinema. Credited with his inventiveness, it is widely accepted that it was the technology he created that allowed man eventually to travel and to walk on the moon. Dawkins has a mind that offers the rocket as verification of what man can 'factually' achieve. Peterson seems less interested in the finished product and more interested in what it is that inspires such a scientific endeavour in the first place. Dawkins appears to undermine the process of psychological thought, in particular, the significance of imagination in every one of the sciences, physics, and biology included.
@@Adam-gl1qv God isn't a being, God is being itself, existance itself or the foundation/source of it. Thus, the OP is saying that God operates outside of emperical science as he is the foundation for it to begin with.
Alex deserves a lot of credit for facilitating this exchange in a fair manner. He does a really good job of steelmanning both Jordan and Dawkins' respective positions, and grants each of them an equal opportunity to elaborate.
I was extremely impressed with his calm demeanor and how he interjects and steers the conversation.
Those chairs look like they were chosen specifically to keep people uncomfortable and on edge.
@@jenniferannis9445 😂
Lmao facts
😂😂😂😅
😆
They resemble Frank Loyd Wrights chairs. I love em.
which ever side you support is nice but what is really great here is seeing two individuals debating like gentlemen in this day and age.
As Richard Rohr says, “Myths are always true, and sometimes they really happened”…
When ?
@@eddiebus100 people thought Troy was mythical until it was found in the late 1800s
Myths are real the same way numbers are real. Numbers are not material objects that exist in spacetime. They exist as abstractions. Myths are the same in a way.
They often happen!
@@Mbrace818 That sort of fair... However, if I count ten marbles in front of you, we can probably agree there are ten. Myths can't be demonstrated.
Lots of respect for all 3 men.
Beautiful respectful discussion.
Seems so rare now on the internet.
Nah. Dawkins is still an "adze" hat; and, Alexis the Zero and CON er is still just an overrated little sack of denial. 😏
8:42 Jordan Peterson is a psychologist and a therapist by profession and does not prioritize myth. He prioritizes consciousness and psychology and usually looks at all things as to how they relate or contain to that. He prioritizes consciousness and psychology and usually looks at all things at how they relate or pertain to that.
Dawkins was like: Was there really a 'boy who cried wolf'? Prove to me he existed!
He can't see the donut because he is too focused on the hole.
Here's my answer: No, it was a figurative story meant to deliver a point. Why can't Peterson say this? It's really annoying.
@@alexplatt7592 There is more evidence that he did exist than didn't. Why are you certain (without evidence) that he didn't exist?
@@alexplatt7592 you got it!
He said he didn't know. What more do you want?
@@MikesCarInfo It's not a question of whether or not someone existed. It's the story / mythology about them that's being discussed.
My father is a rare person who is very old and orthodox hsidim setmir, he speaks MANY languages very well, including older versions of hebrew arabic has studied talmud extensively.When I was 14 or 15 ( I'm nearly 40 now) he was asked to take a look at the dead sea scrolls. I thought it was a huge honor and when he got back from his trip and I asked him about it he said "It's just a bunch of old men arguing about weather or not those symbols mean : virgin, young woman, desirable woman, unmarried woman, fertile woman etc etc." And it seems they're STILL arguing about it.
Sounds like they all apply simultaneously but Joseph was going to divorce her quietly because of the virginity issue and not because she was desirable in her feminine attributes.
Have you ever played the children's game Telephone? Look how much words get distorted even when people are trying to keep it the same in just a small group over 10 minutes. Now imagine thousands of years and dozens or even hundreds of generations. Even with book-keeping languages change over time. All history as we interpret it is just a game of telephone in a sense
He sounds like an interesting fellow, thank you for honoring him by sharing his story.
And that's where I think the Vatican did humanity a great disservice throughout time. They decided which books to keep. Which books to burn. What to books to hide from humanity and what books to give them as religion. All the while keeping archives of books not only in written in Hebrew, but books written in Latin in their little coffers. Books that probably clarify most of the argument. Gate keepers.
As a Christian, I generally have a lot more respect for Peterson than Dawkins, but I really wish JP would answer RD’s question. He knows what he’s asking, but he keeps tiptoeing around it.
The truth is that both of them are simply cultural Christians. Peterson more so, but I believe Christianity is both morally and factually true. Peterson believes the former but not the latter, and Dawkins believes neither.
I agree. However I don’t believe your assessment is accurate. “He [Jordan] is preoccupied with having to respond to the “follow up”. The answer being “ yes, the virgin birth did historically happen”, follow up: “then prove it as fact”.
The only way outside of faith, would be to have Yeshua’s physical body here, take a sample of his cell(s), then pinpoint in which ever way those missing chromosomes from a natural father is filled in. Because if ANY of us could do that, or 😅Yeshua himself was willing to leave the throne…and I don’t mean that proverbially - those 23 chromosomes replaced by some divine material would NOT be of ANY similitude of a mortal man’s dna.
Because he truly believes
The truth is that I cannot judge whether a person is 'only culturally Christian'. Nor can anyone else.
Judging such matters is not given to us.
@@thinkoutfulLove you using the name Yeshua, and not Jesus 👌🏻
@@thinkoutful We speak English. And in English, his name is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The only name the wicked hate. Use it, and stop being a Judaizer.
@8:42 “Jordan prioritizes myth and I prioritize fact”.
This statement is a false dichotomy. Jordan also prioritizes fact, but he is willing to acknowledge the possibility of biblical accounts of events being true beyond what can be currently explained through known facts.
so surly h is prioritising faith not facts
I think he more believes the meaning that can be derived from such stories is more true than it being literally true, a meta reality, a hyper truth, an overarching motif. This is why he ducks and dodges this question so much. He more highly values the meaning than whether it is literally true. To say he does not believe, believes, or does not know, each of these statements are loaded with connotations he does not care for.
As the “fact finding” is even described in the 20th century.
That doesn’t make sense at all 😂
Facts are facts. Making claims that CANT be proven or disproven CANNOT be facts. They’re hypothesis and you shouldn’t base you’re entire belief system on the hypothesis of 2000 year old myths
@@Vilutusk What you say is possible as "facts" is actually determined by your experience of what you think is possible. Going to the moon is not something people thought was even possible and someone could argue even 300 years ago that going to the moon is a myth, even now people don't believe the moon-landing footage is real.
There are many things people believe in that they haven't proven for themselves. People believe in the big bang, yet have not proven or disproven it themselves, they believe it based on the trust they have for our teachers and modern scientists. Same thing for Evolution. It doesn't mean these things aren't true or anything, but people believe these things based on faith/trust of others, usually teachers and scientists (who are like our modern day priests).
Professor Dawkins' gift of intelligence is the very same thing that prevents his ability to see his blind spots
Peterson: *uses comprehensive scientific principles and objectively valuable citations to make a nuanced point about divinity*
Dawkin: bUt wUz mArY fUeKt iN hEr pOoZy?!?!?!?!?
No; it's his WILL that does that. 😉
It could simply be the fact that he's old now. It's very hard to take in new and complex concepts when you're in your 80s.
I kind of wish this conversation would've happened 10 or so years ago. I think JBP has become less articulate as well.
It is more hubris than intelligence because he's so busy worshipping himself that he can't fathom being wrong and smart people know what they don't know or can't know instead of talking out of their asses like they have all the answers...Plainly said he's not God even tho he walks around as if he is and JBP at least is smart enough to say "I don't know..."
@@Mbrace818 No; Dawkins has always been a willfully-blind god-denier.
3:00 "the virgin birth is based on a mistranslation of Isaiah."
Aww, how cute. Dawkins is borrowing a theist (Jewish) objection to the virgin birth.
Yeah. I mistranslation? I’ve never heard that objection before. Is it popular?
Seriously 🎯 I'm glad JP is not overly concerned with tripping and crossing Dawkins with his hypocrisy as you've pointed out. Dawkins is tortuously smug. Especially for any True scientist that understands the obvious limitations and ever evolving enterprise of the scientific realm.
@@BudVidz0 no, it usually only comes up if witnessing to someone that speaks Hebrew. In Isaiah 7:14 they will claim the word for virgin (almah) is misinterpreted. If you don't speak Hebrew they usually won't listen to you, only Jewish believers in Jesus. (Yeshua)
What has that got to do with anything?!! Can you hear yourself? You completely ignored the point, as did Jordan. There is no evidence that it happened. Therefore there is no reason to believe it. What do you as an adult in the modern age not get about that?
@Smellindamix There's no proof that it happened, but there is evidence. You don't feel that the evidence is sufficient, but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
"People don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
God is dead.
- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead.
- God
:)
@@sketch820god is dead, now man is free
I don’t want to lose my illusions. They’re my dreams.
But what is the illusion and what is not?
I fell in love with a horse and was crazy.
- Frederick Nietzsche
Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.
Agreed. It is actually so freeing to have faith.
Sadly in reality it's usually just delusion, but if it makes you feel good today go for it.
@@GingerBear22 I would argue that too much faith leads to blindness through ideology.
@@l000tube it depends on how you understand faith. If you understand it in the protestant way (Luther said that "Reason is the devil's greatest whore" xd) then you get people believing the universe is 6000 years old. If you understand it in the catholic/orthodox way (which is the original way), then you have a belgian priest discovering the Big Bang and the Church inventing modern science. Faith isn't "believing without proof", it is trust, and to trust something you need evidence.
@l000tube yep I am sure you would like to argue
The fallacy of all "scientists" I come across are that they have an opinion, not an experience.
Alex is a truly incredible mediator. Though I know his views of if I watched him mediate I couldn’t tell you his perspective. That’s impressive
That's because he too is evolving. Alex is not the same way, even in his debates as he was before. I even heard him describe himself as agnostic as regards to belief in a recent interview and I found that quite interesting.
Dr. Jordan Peterson is a CHAMPION !
Truly a captivating discussion. I have tremendous respect for Alex O’Connor for how genuinely he seems to search for the truth, I appreciated how he held Jordan’s feet to the fire and got a straight answer out of him. I also appreciate how Jordan pointed out to Prof. Dawkins the assumption being made in all scientific endeavors, that there is a logical and discernible pattern to the properties of the universe, and as Prof Peterson points out, this is uniquely a Judeo-Christian phenomenon. Can’t wait to watch the whole sit-down.
This was painful. JP can’t bring himself to declare his belief in the Virgin birth because that would mean declaring himself as a Christian. For those of us who do believe, it’s a no brainer. Yes, we believe in the miraculous birth, death and resurrection of Christ.
While I disagree with you that Jesus was born of a virgin, I agree with you that Peterson is a coward who can't answer simple yes/no questions. Why? He has created a brand for himself that Christian men are attracted to, and he's too afraid to jeopardize his success with that group. In reality, he doesn't believe in any mythology at all.
I'd watch it again and pay more attention. He did say yes he does believe Jesus was born of a virgin. It's just the question he has a problem with.
And he definitely is a Christian. Check out his lectures on the book of Exodus if you have a week to spare.
Jordan Peterson is a Christian I don't understand how anyone could get that confused. Why do you believe in something that you don't have any evidence to believe in?
I see the opposite happening; Peterson is openly and proudly a Christian, but he has no way of reconciling his knowledge of science and biology with the "miracle" birth, which may be accepted only as a matter of faith. (Here "faith" not as a belief in absence of evidence, but a step further; as a belief in contradiction of evidence) This may be especially troubling to some given the firm, science-based distinctions Peterson has supported with regard to the sexes in context of the gender identity debates.
I feel he should have just admitted that he has no way of justifying the claim outside faith, and since the question has little bearing on his own reasons for being a Christian or how he lives his life, the tension with science/biology does not trouble him. I suspect he does not take this tack because "Will to Believe" was published 1896 and JP has probably studied all the criticisms against of it, and wishes to grapple with the issue in his own way rather than retread work done by others. In doing so he flounders about but I respect that he published this video and see that decision as acknowledgement that such floundering is part of the experience of a person seeking a moral life, for which I think some degree of faith (not necessarily Christian) is absolutely necessary.
Have a wonderful day!
This is a high level conversation!! A privilege to see these two brilliant minds.
Nah. Dawkins is more like an "Ed E. Ott" savant. 😏
No. Dawkins, as always, is trying to help his interlocutor see things a bit more clearly by slapping down Petersons abstract nonsense with clarity and science. There is only 1 brilliant mind here, and its not Peterson. The first few sentences of this clip tells you everything you need to know.
@@l000tube I don't have Dr. Peterson's psychological credentials; but, even I can SEE PLAINLY that you're either deluded, lying, or both. 😏
@l000tube but his approach isn't clarifying it's a dodge. No one cares if it occurred literally. It actively cannot matter
@@FlawlessP401 It is clarifying, when Peterson tries to tell us that fictional writing is truth and Dawkins reminds him that, by definition, fiction is made up, then that is clarifying. Maybe not to you, but to anyone who likes rationality and reason, it is.
As a Peterson fan, someone who likes the safety and comfort of opinions and fictions as 'truths' then you're not going to like it when Dawkins attempts to correct you, your 'feels' are going to get in the way.
Weird dream about JP last night. He was going to his car (some orange American type sports car yet more practical somehow) nothing definite. I was flying above sort of a bit threatening and he clocked me saying something like ‘come down or don’t at all’. It was a bit of a meet your hero dream which I haven’t had since very young. Ended up chatting and it was all cool. Strange and even stranger I feel the need to share!!! Bizarre
Left vs Right brain discussion here with a Corpus Callosum doing his best to mediate it
left vs right brain is debunked.
Stephen Wolfram vs Jonathan Pageau would be a level up left vs right brain discussion :D
@@borzydar1196 That would be really interesting to see
@@tr-qr7pwAbsolutely not, each brain half basically has their own personality. This is not at all debunked, quite the opposite.
@@lakshen47 Yes, but they don't function in absolute contrast to eachother (VS). The whole "your left brain is more rational, and the right brain more emotional" kind of crap is debunked. Most of the time your brains cooperate. So calling one side of the discussion "right brained" and the other "left brained" or calling the discussion "left-brain vs rightbrain" makes absolutely zero sense.
Jordan is terrible at articulating his thoughts on this. Dawkins wants to say that the stories of the Bible as propositions of history are literally false because the events to which they purport to refer didn’t occur and Jordan wants to say that the stories of the Bible reflect deep truths about humanity. These are two different things completely. Jordan all but admitted that both positions are likely simultaneously true - Bible as history book is false and Bible as a reflection of human nature and morality is “true”. Why that took over an hour is beyond me.
the Bible especially in later parts of the stories actually has real historical people that have existed in the past.
I would even say that even Moses existed. the story of the Exodus happened right before the Bronze Age Collapse and of course the myth has to be judged in a much more realistic manner.
only a tiny fraction of ancient Jews escaped slavery from Egypt. and Egypt was too busy fighting the Sea People or so other war against a powerful enemy. so these Jews lead by Moses escaped.
the Bible is of course full of metaphors. a literal interpretation of the Bible is stupid.
and Richard Dawkins reads the Bible literally. that's his mistake.
I'm not all that religious myself but I see militant atheism as ridiculous nonsense. so middle ground in which ancient Greek and Roman philosopher actually did believe in a God but not so much in literal interpretation of myths and stories is the way forward.
there are definitely very good moral truths and lessons in the Bible that should be respected.
the Bible is a moral philosophical book. a book in which a moral framework teaches humanity how to live a good moral life.
and I also don't have a problem with the existence of a God or intelligent design.
atheist explanation of the universe is what exactly? that everything in the universe is just random chemicals and particles of dust that exist for no reason?
many scientists like to mention dark matter orthe void before time itself existed. religious people also say God is timeless. so I see no problem to believe in a God that is powerful that exists beyond physical materialism. Richard Dawkins and atheists put human scientific limits on what a God can be or what it can do.
The question of the virgin birth is an excellent place to launch a debate about religion because it really cuts to the heart of the atheist position.
Atheists want to say that - obviously - a virgin birth is unscientific, just as they want to say that - obviously - the story of Noah’s ark is unscientific.
And while there may be any number of unscientific Christians who believe in such stories uncritically, the question for JP is not whether they are true in a sense that science can address.
For Dawkins, this is tantamount to admitting that they are not true in any meaningful sense at all. And many will want to stop listening at that point, but this is where the real debate begins.
JP is not a Flat-Earther. He acknowledges and respects the contributions of science. He certainly understands the basic science of human reproduction perfectly well.
He only seems to be dodging the question of the virgin birth because he suspects - with good reason - that it is not well formed, and he doesn’t want to answer in a way that would trivialize his position.
And what is his position? It’s that there is a sense - which is more important than the banal scientific one - that Christ was born of a virgin.
How can this be explained? Well, obviously not in a way that would satisfy those who demand a scientific account.
But JP is concerned with the function of myth. He believes that myth provides an account of reality that science is not equipped to address. Indeed, he believes that the myths underlying Christianity provide the essential grounds for science.
It is a subtle and complex notion that takes a lot of effort to unpack.
It was a boring conversation, really. Their respective positions could be summarized in a couple sentences each and if that had been done they’d probably largely agree with on another on most of it.
For an atheist, the question about the validity of the virgin birth couldn't possibly be answered without themselves allowing God to exist temporarily for the purpose of potentially having the question answered.
Thank you so much that's really Brilliant.
If God does exist, then the question is valid, if he doesn't, it's an irrelevant question.
By that logic you can boil everything down to your sky wizard and logic and science dies on the spot.
a virgin birth shouldn't be that insane to someone who believes that life can from non-life
and, a birth coming from a biological body is already better than coming from nothingness.
the atheistic realm could write it off as a 'freak accident' or 'scientific anomaly'
but there are multiple ways that even an atheist can believe in a 'virgin' birth,
in the sense that virgin implies the lack of fornication or conventional sperm
@@slimblank9280 aren't you tired of those boring clichés 😅 try saying something novel and constructive. I hardly hear Atheist talk in those terms... we've gone past that my friend.
Having said that, the question remains. Can all truths be verified only through the Scientific method? And if so, how does the Scientific method validate itself?
Debating the existence of God... is Godly.
Doing and saying things that seek to improve things is proof of the existence of God in men and women for the pure simple fact that they're seeking to do good.
Pete I gotta say the battles that you're responsible for are vastly different then my own. I think you're amazing.
This mediator is doing an amazing job. Wow!
I don't think anyone who has followed Alex is the least bit surprised. He's pretty brilliant.
That’s Alex o Connor lol
Jordan gives a great answer near the end of the video. I'm so happy he is around to say things like that to intellectuals.
4:58 i never seen JBP so ready to strangle someone XD
He actually knows he was pretending to be ' I don't know the Answer '
There is a reason Dawkins and OConnor are so calm. Telling the truth is easy. Peterson squirms under scrutiny.
@@segaboy9894 Sometimes it is very difficult to tell the truth.
Thats not why. @segaboy9894
@@segaboy9894 - as if an atheist would know what “truth” is 😂
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” - this goes, sadly, for JP too. As much as I am on “his side” in this conversation, he darts and desperately tries to dodge answering clearly the question on the virgin birth. As Christians, it’s a simple yes it’s true. It isn’t a scientific question for it was an act of God intervening. It can’t be explained by science. Praying JP fully surrenders to Christ and stops battling the truth like this.
@@HeyDave16 stop battling common sense too I guess. At least we can all agree that to believe such things requires not asking questions.
I agree. However I don’t believe your assessment is accurate. “He darts and desperately….dodge…” isn’t quite his position. He is preoccupied with having to respond to the “follow up”. The answer being “ yes, the virgin birth did historically happen”, follow up: “then prove it as fact”.
The only way outside of faith, would be to have Yeshua’s physical body here, take a sample of his cell(s), then pinpoint in which ever way those missing chromosomes from a natural father is filled in. Because if ANY of us could do that, or 😅Yeshua himself was willing to leave the throne…and I don’t mean that proverbially - those 23 chromosomes replaced by some divine material would NOT be of ANY similitude of a mortal man’s dna.
I dont hear JP professing himself as wise in a pompous manner. Or even in a banal sense. He seems to humble himself quite often and he is being humble and authentic when he admits that he doesn't know if the virgin birth happened. I don't think either he or Dawkins are fools.
@@thinkoutful exactly. Now imagine a modern human believing a human can exist without a human father’s DNA.
@@None-lt5lwtrue, that would be foolish, unless this "human" was special. Now look at the gospels, the claims, miracles, the resurrection, the church, the domination of pagans and how that happened (not through violence)... then, and only then, the case gets compelling. Evidence and reason will lead to faith
Jordan… why don’t you you say, yes, in faith I believe Jesus was born of a virgin just like scripture tells us?
It was a supernatural event
or maybe just symbolism. Which is more likely ?
He he would have to hold that also, as he believes in atheistism big bang.
@@davidscott3478 it’s mythology
Better question.
Who fucking cares
The implications of their discussion is much more important than this shallow ass materialist nonsense.
Nobody is born a believer. No Popes were born believers. Neither were any Imams, nor any Archbishops. Nobody reading this post was born a believer. All believers eventually became so because other people convinced them, without offering a shred of empirical evidence, that their own chosen deity is real, while countless others aren’t. Not all religions can simultaneously be correct, and no one religion has a more plausible claim of validity than any other. Religions have had many beneficial qualities for the human race, but most of the world’s conflicts derive from the fact that people cannot agree on the correct way to worship a common god whose existence is nothing but conjecture.
They kept changing the subject to try to pin the belief of a miracle on Jordan and then discount anything else he might have to say. While Jordan's words may have fell on deaf ears, I gained a lot of insight personally.
You understand the assignment.
JP is a clinical psychologist/professor who did a thesis on alcoholism, yet wasn't even aware of the well known dangers of benzodiazepines.....
@@Cryharder-r1e So you just gonna copy/paste your comment in every thread regardless of relevance ? who paid you, bot ?
@@larrylucid5502 JP also stated himself that he "adamantly" tried to get a client to take pharmaceuticals. A clinical psychologist/professor who isn't even aware of the well known dangers of benzodiazepines, yet pushes pharmaceuticals onto others, has questionable competency at the very least; can you grasp how dangerous this type of incompetence is within the mental health world?
@@Cryharder-r1e Have you listened to him discuss what happened with the benzodiazepines?
Peterson finally looks healthy.
He almost certainly eats a complete diet now. We'll never know, because the illusion of eating beef exclusively and giving non-answers to yes/no questions is on-brand for this type of liar.
@@segaboy9894salty
@@segaboy9894 Get a life.
Looks healthy, sounds crazy.
@@segaboy9894I don't think he's lying I think he's been in psychology for so long he's lost his mind. Psychology is a very mushy, soggy soft science.
Ngl seems like a waste of time debating whether or not the exact story of the bible truly happened.
I'm not religious but I won't deny the impact that Christianity had on building a better world.
Yeah, you know, except for thise tiny little things like… the crusades, or witch trials, of southern slavery, or keeping minorities and women under control…. You know, just the small stuff. Ya ingrate.
Why does he claim the virgin birth is a mistranslation? It is not. Look at the Septuagint, translated from the Hebrew 200 years before Christ. It says clearly "a virgin."
Dawkins should get educated on the ancient texts or stop making definitive pronouncements as if he were an expert.
Faith and your inner enlightenment are my answers. Human minds have a difficult time compartmentalizing spiritual experiences versus "Scientific" analysis. We each are born with the Light of Christ and learning to keep and grow that light is the human journey.
What a marvelous discussion! The brilliance of the thing is blinding me👌
Three people who reject The Truth trying to describe it. It’s like a mathematician trying to do math whilst rejecting the idea of numbers.
The Gospel is foolishness to the perishing.
Explain/show multiplication without a metaphor 😂.
"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."
2 Nephi 9:28
@@IanBakkerMormons actually watch Peterson? Didn’t see that coming
Imagine thinking you "know better" than these 3 minds.
What an incredibly self-centered and narcissistic take.
Your videos always amaze me with their professionalism and depth of treatment of the topic. Thank you for your dedication and passion for creativity!🐭🫣🚕
Wow, this looks like an actually amazing conversation... Alright, i need to watch the whole thing now
God created the Heavens and the Earth. Creating life with out a sperm seems small potatoes to me.
There is a difference between a five year old who believes in God and a fifty year old who believes in God. If you don't know the difference, then you are the former
Is he arguing for immaculate conception or the validity of gaslighting?
Jordan criticizes claims that men can have children as ridiculous, and I agree. But if he then claims a virgin can give birth, he is being equally as ridiculous.
Have you ever heard of IVF?
@@vaportrails7943 You are playing with semantics. That doesn't make you clever, it makes you an AO.
@@JasmineSinclair-i3n A woman can give birth without ever having sexual intercourse with a man. Do you deny that?
How do you know that in 100 or even 1000 years people can find a way to do virgin births?
Going to the moon is not something people thought was even possible and someone could argue even 300 years ago that going to the moon is a myth, even now people don't believe the moon-landing footage is real, people ignore nowadays that was is understood to be 'possible' is based on your own personal experience, but who's to say that something outside what you think is normal/possible could occure such as a virgin birth?
@@JasmineSinclair-i3n The way you framed your original statement isn't even the way the Bible explains it. It doesn't say that virgins can give birth. I think you are also just trying to sound clever, but actually sound rather ordinary. The Bible makes the assumption that you will think it's ridiculous, which is why it's called a miracle. Furthermore, if you had a thorough knowledge of the texts then you would realize that sin travels through the seed of Adam. If Christ had been conceived through normal means, he would still have original sin.
Edit* (Original sin refers to Adam's first sin in the garden; the curse of which extends to all generations after)
If you were a devout Christian you would know better than to ask the question. The entire enterprise is predicated on Jesus being the Son of God. If He is not the Son of God then His sacrifice for our sins is for naught.
I maintain that science is the application of specific epistemological arguments to metaphysical questions. It's value as an enterprise is born out in improvements it has made possible to our standard of living. But examining the foundational philosophy, it's not even claiming to be able to answer every question there is to ask. Science is a powerful to for testing falsifiable hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to understand what is _True_ is a different undertaking, one I'm not sure we're equipped to succeed at, in any definitive way.
Science is a tool, not a god. And the science we have are known as the natural sciences. What created our existence/cosmos was beyond nature... Supra-natural and used science that didn't follow the rules our existence holds by.
Science is more dimensional than you describe but okay, your statements are fine. However, what do they have to do with the conversation from the video, really?
If you are Catholic and believe God created the universe, heaven and Adam from dust - then the ability for God to orchestrate a virgin birth is child’s play. The simple answer is ‘yes’ it was a virgin birth. Science, from that point of view is simply the human approach to understand what God already made.
I would like you to discuss your ideas of the bible with academic biblical sholars such as Bart Ehrman who has had some very intresting conversations with Alex O’Connor
Why can’t JP acknowledge the context of their question and say “I don’t know”? We got there eventually but it was tortuous.
Because he is a coward. There is no way he believes in any of this mythology.
Because that's the wrong question. The correct question is "What does the Virgin Birth mean?" JP should have pointed this out at the beginning. I know he knows this (he taught me, somehow, so...).
He muddies the waters intentionally so he doesn't anger his largely right wing fanbase.
@@PotatoBTD6 There's no such thing as a wrong question. Jordan Peterson could simply answer the question, and then follow up by saying "we should be asking this question".
JBP is right to point out that we should focus on the meaning of mythological stories. But he's wrong in thinking there's some hidden motive in the more literal-based questions and not taking those questions at face value.
probably the same reason why dawkins says that we can't say the word time when it comes to the singularity and then people should ask a physicist rather than him.
although there are physicists who are theist, and dawkins seems to say that theists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to god, yet simultaneously says that he doesn't know enough to talk about physics, to the point that he refers people to physicists,
it's a circular argument
In my opinion, JP wants to believe the accounts are true because there is so much usefulness in many things the Bible says but the supernatural aspect of it makes his scientific side prevent him from saying they are facts, lest he starts to believe all supernatural events other people claim happened.
The truth is, it’s of no importance whether those things actually happened, and this partly explains why Peterson has always avoided (or, when asked, spoke about their interpretation instead) such questions.
What he actually means is that each story has a certain meaning behind it. In a sense, the Bible, in his eyes, is similar to a selection of fairytales (if you like), each giving you a valuable lesson.
Those who constantly try to poke him understand it, but they fail to see Peterson’s motive. Therefore, it’s more about their attitude towards Jordan rather than their search for the truth.
The latter is upsetting
The problem is the two are distinct ideas. The sciences work because they follow the laws of nature, hence natural sciences. God is outside creation , beyond nature, hence supra-natural.
The problem/trap that Peterson and many who debate on the side of God is that the initial debate where the atheists say to the other to agree that everything existence within the confines of a universe that held by the rules of natural science.
As soon as the other agrees, they automatically lost
JP believes jesus is a mythological hero, but he has to pretend its more than that to keep getting $ from Christians
It's not from a mistranslation of Isaiah. That's a hypothesis that Dawkin's agrees with, but it is by no means a fact.
Shroud of TURIN now validates Resurrection
Speechless. I love it
Jordan Petersen is not a believer and people must just realize that. He is nothing close to the real heroes we have in the apostles and the missionaries who have stated clearly what they believe. Paul says this outright in 1 Corinthians 2: For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
If he cannot even confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and that he is God, His only begotten Son, and if he cannot accept that it's not just a story--it is the Truth, then he has no business making Christians pander to his pseudoChristian moralism. JORDAN : CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH THE LORD JESUS AND BELIEVE IN YOUR HEART THAT GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD AND YOU WILL BE SAVED!!!
Saying myth is secondary is like an actor not knowing hes playing a role
Science is only one way of knowing the world. It is not the ONLY way. Science is not truth. One fundamental characteristic of science is that it’s self-correcting. The truth is beyond the reach of the scientific epistemology. The ontological assumptions of science also differs from theological assumptions. Dawkins seems not to be open to any other ways of knowing except for science. That’s why it’s difficult for JP to communicate with Dawkins. Read more and be more humble. You may perceive more.
4:52 The answer is NO Jordan!
How do atheists reconcile commemorating Christmas, i.e.: a celebration of the highest with the most beautiful music in existence - choral music? A choir of voices and music inspired by and directed towards the highest ideal, gifting, birth/rebirth, charity. Is it unnecessary hogwash that has usurped the winter solstice? Is it better off replaced by a usurper of Saint Nicklaus installed by short-sighted money grabbers to ditch the choral music in favour of the canned repetitive music playing through the malls the day after Halloween?
Two great minds together, I listened to the podcast really amazing. Thank you.❤
6:00 yes, the virgin birth really happened. So did the resurrection. These are literal events. God is a literal being, a Spirit. I see no reason for anyone to call themselves a Christian if they don't believe, literally, in the basic tenets of Christianity. These would all be simple things for a quad-omni God, so the problem here is that none of these ppl believe in God.
The way I see it is that Dawkins looks at facts and how we can make scientific advancements. He doesn't seem to care about anything else. Peterson values that obviously, but in terms of temperament he is a lot more interested in people and how we as humans navigate and understand the world around us. I just don't think Dawkins cares about that at all and I think that's a damn shame. Scientific facts is great and all, but how does quantum physics help regular people trying to get by and survive in life. How does quantum physics help people confront their anxieties and depressions and existential dread? These people don't give a shit about quantum physics nor would even care to understand it, when they are just trying to get by in life, trying to live a meaningful life. And this is important if you want to understand the current culture war we are in.
Richard Dawkins had a pretty wealthy upper class upbringing, who was a gentry (basically an aristocrat) just below the nobility class while Jordan comes from a very poor working class background from northern Alberta. This is why they are so different and it is an important fact. Jordan is a psychologist and has helped people in therapy for years, of course he would have more interest in myths and metaphysical narrative since storytelling is what the regular human beings on this planet are interested in because they are trying to find meaning in their existence and trying to navigate their lives through depression and anxiety. Dawkins just does not have an interest in that, and his work has very little value to regular people, when Jordan is trying to bridge the two types of thinking together so that we can somehow find an answer or solution to this current culture we are in. To me storytelling will always have more value than just random set of scientific facts, facts are useful when we use them to form a narrative that would move forward the advancements of human life. They are all meaningless in a vacuum. Storytelling is what connects people to the metaphysical. The masses are interested in movies, video games, non fiction books, etc. Not random scientific facts. And that is the case for good reason. Scientific facts have value but they are meaningless without a story. Myth and facts need some sort of marriage otherwise society crumbles. And this is why, at least to me, Peterson doesn't care about questions when asked if he believes in God, virgin birth or the resurrection. Because it doesn't matter if they were real events. It's the symbolism that matters, which has changed the course of human history.
This was an excellent analysis, I hope more people read this. I hate when people try to invalidate people based on things that aren't relevant to the point they're making, but the class and upbringing issue here is very much relevant. Dawkins has always had the *luxury* of being flippant and dogmatic because his world was safe and secure due to his family position in life. When you grow up without absolutes, and your life isn't stable and your future isn't guaranteed, you don't have the *luxury* of being able to deal with the world as though you can understand anything you wanted to if you just read a paper or conducted a little experiment. Atheists have a terrible problem of creating dogmatic echo chambers and not being open at all to trying to understand that which sustained people who have been through hardship trying to make sense of it all. I'm not saying that atheists haven't known hardship, but I'm saying their intolerance of even hearing anything that they don't deem "scientific", when most of them don't even study science they just read pseudo science papers online, leaves a huge blind spot in their experience and understanding of not just the world but the human condition.
Dawkins is a superficial thinker. And Peterson a confused one (purposefully so). They spent the entire conversation talking past each other unnecessarily. Dawkins must admit that he is not interested in facts per se but only facts about certain things. To distinguish between facts and symbols as he did makes no sense because as Jordan would reply there are facts about symbols too - about which Dawkins seems to have no interest. As for Jordan, he simply can’t bring himself to answer whether he believes the stories of the Bible really took place in a literal sense.
This is why i think peterson is not a believer, becsuse he is afraid of looking foolish, if you can believe the first 4 words in the bible, you can believe the whole thing! Do you? Or not
The biggest mistake here, as far as I tell, is having one “mediator.“
As opposed to two? Or zero? I do think that Alex isn’t exactly unbiased, but I am not sure that his presence is harmful to the discussion
Could All powerful God do a miracle outside the bounds of logic. Obviously, a all powerful God could. So, it should be answered from that perspective. In the end, this sums up Christianity. They are either all wrong or they are all right. At its essence, Christianity is based on a faith concept.
Dawkins has always discussed the historicity of Christian mythology; historicity for Jordan Peterson isn’t that important, it’s the implicit meanings of the mythology.
JP is a clinical psychologist/professor who did a thesis on alcoholism, yet wasn't even aware of the well known dangers of benzodiazepines....
That may be true if it is true it needs to explicitly stated, Jordan is a modern day priest he articulates the symbolic meaning present in all things , this isn’t profound …one can ramble on about the profound symbolic nature a screw and bolt .
Just because there is meaning present in does not make it legitimate , there is meaning in all things as the divine is present in all.
@@Cryharder-r1e I don't see the relation of your comment to mine, or to the video in general other than it being an insult.
@@dembabadem6808I literally stated a fact; do facts trigger you or something?
History is what Christians have faith in. As mythology it IS profound. Claiming it is literal historic fact makes it rediculous.
If God created the entire universe, then putting an embryo into the womb of a virgin ain't nothin', folks. ✝✝✝✝
Dr. Peterson, it is so impressive to me that you are willing to test your ideas in this way. You truly tread the delicate difficult path for the benefit of others. You are my intellectual hero.
"Mistranslation from Isaiah?" - what a silly claim!
For the ones giving Pete the faith spiel.. understandable, but I don't think most understand the tactful snares that are unleashed early on, that have the sole intention of defeating Petersons entire side of any conversation. Good work Pete , unbelievable.
@@C-Millstone He's brilliant
Hello Jordan,
In one of Mikhaias podcast episodes, the interviewer asked her, “How is it your parents raised you?” Mikahlia said, “ My dad always treated me as if I could do more.” That's biological evolution itself, in human physiological terms right there.
Is one thing to have a silent underlying condition of EXCELLENCE, but imagine actually REWARDING instead of just an underlying condition. Evolutionarily animalia speaking; this is exactly which species are able to reproduce and why.
Though that may only even be to ONLI conscious Beings that can have a reward system
JBP is the wisest thinker of our time, always a pleasure to listen to him. Great comparison with quantum physics, we don't understand how two particles can move at the same time even though they're millions of light years away. The same way we don't understand the Virgin Birth or other miracles.
@@croissantamandes only difference is we have evidence of one
Apples and oranges.
To date there has been no good evidence for any miracle, anywhere at any time. Zero, nothing.
We as a species are actually figuring out deep scientific questions. We are not substanciating claims about miracles.
And just like that, he made something impossible just unexplainable...
@@Esco87 What evidence do YOU personally have of how two particles 2000 miles away are interacting? In fact, what evidence do you have as for how the particles of my tiny pinky finger are interacting with each other? Please, answer me.
If you think what JBP is saying is profound, you should also check out Jonathan Pageau and the early Christian Church father's like St Maximos the Confessor.
What is a woman? Libs: meh, not gonna answer that. Was there a virgin birth? JP: meh.... Not gonna answer that. 😂
You can’t explain a miracle. That’s what qualifies it as miraculous. Duh
Exactly. Try explaining Microbiology or computer science to people 4000 years ago. It would all be a miracle to those folks lol
@@fredheimuli5913 And Microbiology and Computer Science is a miracle, glory to God. They are common miracles that happen day to day so they aren't so significant, but miracles happen all the time.
Jonathan Pageau (Jordan Peterson's close friend) has a video on this you guys may like:
Jonathan Pageau - What Is a Miracle?
Dawkins said it well: "I am more interested in facts, not symbols." I couldn't agree more.
It was a superficial thing to say. There are also facts about symbols. What he should have said is that he is mainly interested in the whether or not the stories of the Bible literally occurred rather than what they have to teach while still acknowledging that said teachings could, in a sense, be true or false themselves.
I get what they both say, but it’s like they’re on two fundamentally different wavelengths in terms of how they approach and think about the world. Both are of incredible value, but for different purposes.
and yet they synchronized in the end
They could have easily gotten on the same wavelength by defining the issues better and likely this conversation could have been done in 20 minutes.
Huge respect for the mediator here.
The only thing thats obvious here is that the question about how we deal with the oppression of women within the strictily "factual" paradigm was never answered... unfortunately the moderator jumped in
Two against One. I can't take Dawkins or the "moderator" seriously. Good job Jordan.
JP is a clinical psychologist/professor who did a thesis on alcoholism, yet wasn't even aware of the well known dangers of benzodiazepines.....
@@Cryharder-r1e Curious isn't it
As scientist and atheist watching these brillant minds discuss, it is a blessing 🌟
"Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand."
~ Pablo Picasso
1881-1973
How can Richard Dawkins prioritize fact when in order to live, he also needs to have a set or morals to guide him. Morals he's arriving at that can't be factual by being poked, prodded or put in a petri dish. So he's taking a leap of faith there.
JP is a clinical psychologist/professor who did a thesis on alcoholism, yet wasn't even aware of the well known dangers of benzodiazepines....
I know there's a deeper context to this discussion here, but I am more annoyed about Dr.Dawkins error - which he speaks in great confidence. We know it was not a translation error. Alma (the term used in Isaiah) can mean young woman and it can mean virgin. And the Jewish rabbis - who did not know Yeshua or the "Christian movement"- who labored over translating the Hebrew scriptures into the Septuagint centuries before Yeshua had no problem translating alma into parthenos (kione greek for virgin).
Dawkins is so smug, arrogant and self righteous. Calling the sacrifices referred to in the Bible as disgusting, he shows his ignorance of the deep theology rooted in these stories even though he proclaims to know the Bible and the "hymns"... Yes, he's a theologian because of this... It's possible to be an atheist and still have respect for others beliefs, but in Dawkins there seems to be none. Dr. Peterson is very patient dealing with these two and does a terrific job defending his positions. He, on the other hand shows great humility and patience with these antagonists.
@@aargh42g5 Reminds me of the movie God is not dead
I mean you have to remember that this man has been called a liar n fraud by people who believe the Bible is both scientifically n historically accurate. And the only reason they have to disagree with proven science is through a religious text, text that even I’m Jordan Peterson agrees are myths
What rubbish.
Because of my faith in the unseen and unknown in the natural man, I believe God’s word. It’s because I’ve been ‘born again’ and the Holy Spirit gives me His wisdom
I think the mediator did really well.
It seemed to me that what JP was saying was that the evidence for the Virgin birth can only be found through the resulting outcome of the event. No one was monitoring Mary day and night prior in order to provide some accountability of the assertion. He’s looking at the “story” and the basis on which everything flows from the acceptance of the event to ascertain its value and merit.
Jordan is terrible at articulating his thoughts on this. Dawkins wants to say that the stories of the Bible as propositions of history are literally false because the events to which they purport to refer didn’t occur and Jordan wants to say that the stories of the Bible reflect deep truths about humanity. These are two different things completely. Jordan all but admitted that both positions are likely simultaneously true - Bible as history book is false and Bible as a reflection of human nature and morality is “true”. Why that took over an hour is beyond me.
Wow what a good idea. Kudos to both
Yes, that accent is real. Of course there is a broad range of understandability. For some in St. John’s it’s virtually undetectable. In other areas, it is very rapid and incomprehensible. Newfoundland English is a mix of rural West Country English (Southwestern English counties of Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, and surrounds), somewhat similar to what many would call a pirate accent, and mostly western Ireland accents. The Newfoundland accent varies greatly, traditionally, depending on where the people came from when the community was established and how isolated that community was.
peterson, please refrain from debating anything related to christianity, thanks.
I love both Dawkins and Peterson. I can see where each side is coming from. I think the two of them together with their respective fields of expertise could probably invoke some pretty good questions and provide interesting answers after a good, long debate. Not even being recorded and for entertainment, but just alone, the two of them, trying to sift through mythology, history, and metaphor. I hope to see more.
Careful when you talk about the Mother of God 🙏💖🌹
Or what?
@@vincentfalcone9218 or you'll be sent to Habana... or Gehenna
I agree with Dawkins. Truth matters. I believe in Jesus because we have historical evidence for his resurection. It means this event really happened.
Christianity besides facts it demands faith on the impossible. Now it takes even more faith to believe that all that we term reality happened by happenstance
Not really, evidence is evidence, there's no proof.
No. There is not any evidence.
@@Olivertarismo there is evidence. You can watch my short video about it. I summarised it in less than 60 seconds (but I could speak about evidence of his resurection for hours)
@@MrMojoRisin-ul3vp have you ever studied the historical evidence of the resurection of Jesus? I did. Therefore I converted to Christianity.
The problem is that when converting to the factual side of the story and saying the stuff with jesus wasnt real then mythological power it expressed over the souls of many millions even today in the most beauitful and maybe objectively best way possible also becomes invalidated, fooling people into believing that being evil is okay because it is logical
It's just the finite and infinite mind having a discussion. 🙂
This was the most serious and funniest conversation ever
Short answer: Christ was born of a virgin. Details on how and why can be found in Grudems Systematic Theology for ex. or in EXPOSITIONAL sermons on this topic by RC Sproul or John MacArthur.
Jordan, I think both you and Dawkins are somewhat correct here (although I fundamentally agree with you over Dawkins). Mary was not literally a virgin, she was a highly initiated Essene. Although a great deal of mysticism was involved in the 'virgin birth,' conception in the traditional sense was involved...
I recommend you look into esoteric Christianity, specifically Rudolf Steiner. His
( 4:53 - 5:02 ) This is all you need to know!
Wernher von Braun spoke about his inspiration to create projectiles after a childhood viewing of 'La Voyage Dans La Luan' in the cinema. Credited with his inventiveness, it is widely accepted that it was the technology he created that allowed man eventually to travel and to walk on the moon. Dawkins has a mind that offers the rocket as verification of what man can 'factually' achieve. Peterson seems less interested in the finished product and more interested in what it is that inspires such a scientific endeavour in the first place. Dawkins appears to undermine the process of psychological thought, in particular, the significance of imagination in every one of the sciences, physics, and biology included.
God is not constrained by science. He operates outside science because He can.
Always hilarious when people claim to know the attributes of a being they can't even demonstrate to exist in the first place
@@Adam-gl1qv God isn't a being, God is being itself, existance itself or the foundation/source of it.
Thus, the OP is saying that God operates outside of emperical science as he is the foundation for it to begin with.
@@olubunmiolumuyiwa That's cool saying that, but is there any good reason to believe any of that is true tho?