"Jordan Peterson, atheism and belief", with Rupert Sheldrake

The meteoric rise of Dr Jordan B Peterson has brought a revival of interest in religion and spirituality. He is embarking on a series of high profile public events with leading atheists like Sam Harris. Rupert Sheldrake is a rare combination - a scientist and a spiritual renegade, and has been debating atheists for decades. What does he make of Peterson, and what tactics does he think Peterson should use in his upcoming debates?
Rupert Sheldrake first came to public prominence with his book 'A New Science of Life'.
www.sheldrake....
His most high profile recent work was a deconstruction of the philosophy of scientific materialism, called the Science Delusion in the UK, and Science Set Free in the US.
www.sheldrake....
And his most recent book is Science and Spiritual Practice.
www.sheldrake....
This was a Rebel Wisdom production, see our website for more and please consider sponsoring us on Patreon.
/ rebelwisdom

[@deladonics]

Rupe! There's no one that personifies rebel wisdom more in my mind than Rupert Sheldrake.

[@96deloused]

Damn, I’ve seen Sheldrake’s name around frequently, but this is my first time actually checking him out. What a clear, measured, brilliant guy. Great interview guys.

[@SourceVibrations]

Rupert Sheldrake has been at this for a long time. He's paved the way for these conversations in ways most people will never know.

[@dennycote6339]

With Terrence McKenna

[@williamoarlock8634]

Bourgeois navel-gazing.

[@AdamSmith-de5oh]

The paradox with Richard Dawkins that he's a evolutionary biologist who believes that evolution selects aggressively for competitive advantages in biological creatures but thinks religion, something that is present in some form in every culture since the dawn of man, is somehow a mind virus.

[@normanthornton9376]

Religion, pure and simple is man's, or I should say some man's, attempt to explain the unexplanible.. It started out thusly, but after a few good guesses, some men saw it as a livelihood.. Why work when you can get others to do it for you. Nature has beset man at every point in his existence since he became aware that he existed as a unique being. That is he developed a conscious mind. A conscious mind is defined as one which knows it is alive and experiences the passage of time.. We are unique in these two respects to all other animals on Earth. No other animal knows that he is alive nor experiences the passage of time as a defined period or periods except from a trained or genetic concept. An animals concept of time is night and day and it adapts its existence to one or the other. The preservation of life is a genetic instinct, this is the mechanism that causes animals to flee from predators, they are not fleeing to prevent their deaths but because of the instinct to preserve their lives.Religion developed over time from a predictor of calamities into a devine message from specific Gods who caused these calamities.. The, we are told that Moses got the word from his one God that he was the only God and the rest of the Gods were only his minions.. The religious caste in all of its forms have been living off the labors of man ever since. The Pyramids, the Mosques, the Temples, the Churches, the Cathedrals and every other structure built was built at the behest of one God or another as instructed by that God's messenger. Not one Pharaoh has been found to be buried in the confines of a Pyramid, yet we are told that these structures were to be his final resting place. Thirty years of work for naught or was it? .

[@tpstrat14]

And one that happened to take root most strongly as philosophy, art, and the scientific method developed. I'm an atheist myself if you want to label me, but that doesn't mean I'm a wailing infant like Dawkins

[@Awenevis1]

It was a pleasure to see the name of Rupert Sheldrake appear in my videofeed. My greatest regards to both Rupert for challenging the axioms of atheism and to Rebel Media for connecting with this very interesting man!

[@snabelsnas]

Get Sheldrake and Peterson in the same room, please...and bring back McKenna from the dead so that he can join.

[@krisc6216]

snabelsnas mckenna isn't dead, he just shifted focus 😉

[@saraheichelberger2339]

Peterson is out of his league in the presence of one like Sheldrake - it would be embarrassing to say the least.

[@bearheart2009]

snabelsnas Do you think they have much in common? Peterson's view seems pretty much antithetical to McKenna's as far as I can tell. Although McKenna spoke affectionately of Jung he also found some of his notions -- like synchronicity --unsatisfying and rejected them. McKenna strongly disavowed patriarchy and advocated for the supremacy of the feminine. He was very socially liberal and seemed to see the only real value of the monotheist religions as being a vehicle for transitioning people into a new shamanic-based religion centered around the use of hallucinogenic drugs. I very much get the impression that he saw the prevailing economic and political setup as almost irredeemably corrupt and oppressive.

[@snabelsnas]

Sarah Bearheart I guess they would disagree on quite alot, but that’s why it would be interesting to have them talk to each other!

[@edwardsullivan5884]

I think they would get along well, because they both understand Jung's archetypes, which are repeated through time, as tarot cards, as Bible stories, as present day super heroes, as Buddhist and Hindu gods etc. They had different angles and come from different times. McKenna is a pantheist, as was Jung, as may be Peterson. Peterson is saying that patriarchy is not a social construct, but rather a by-product of evolution. McKenna agrees with that, but says we should be less autonomous and more aware. Which Peterson wouldn't have any qualm with, as it is also his spiel.

[@edgeofthought]

So Rebel Wisdom, you're doing an amazing job filling this niche of JBP-and-topic-observant interviews. I really love your work, and how the finer-topical conversations are illuminating the broader landscape. Especially you are shining a light on further people, whose work I might never have come across. I have more thoughts but this is enough for now. Best regards.

[@Btn1136]

Edge of Thought - Ideas I agree. It’s interesting because often we get secondary figures that don’t bring any new substance, but he’s discussing gun and melding things in a very useful and new way.

[@tmcleanful]

Jordan Peterson is a eucatastrophe for Western society - he spawns so many lines of thought.

[@mandagrub1377]

@@midi510 I like your thinking. Good question.

[@Sylphenos]

His voice is like a fine brandy

[@enkibumbu]

And a spot of tea and crumpets.

[@MrNiceHk]

it so is

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

and his ideas appear to be heavily affected by many glasses of fine brandy...lol

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@paul w ......and free "open" inquiry is far worse than any alcohol abuse....special when one wants to promote it as science!

[@poppymoon7957]

So true!!

[@DavidJeromePutnam]

Peterson and Sheldrake must meet in 2018 !

[@janellemckinley172]

Might calm poor Peterson down. He takes antidepressants. Surprising, since he ought to be aware of 2 big studies that were done in London and I think France, that show they are no better than placeboes and they have terrible side effects and are extremely difficult to discontinue. A suffering soul, obviously.

[@koismiah30]

Maybe 2019

[@farmschoolchicks1913]

Maybe 2020...

[@bluemansham1]

Sheldrake & Peterson have to meet up 100% ....two of the greatest minds around, with passionate & deep souls! Beautiful indeed! 😊

[@marianam8643]

Brilliant. I love how this conversation is progressing. What fun.

[@gustavf.6067]

It would be amazing to hear a conversation between Jordan and Rupert. Your videos are awesome, thank you.

[@janellemckinley172]

Sarah. It might calm him down. That would be interesting to see.

[@williamoarlock8634]

That overrated Canuck mule and the British Deepak Chopra blathering nonsense.

[@questor55]

The likes of Daniel Kahneman, Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Pinker are moving in on the debate, arguing in various ways that religion is an inextinguishable facet of human thought and behaviour, and even we atheists should best try to understand how we're a part of it, and try to reconcile it rather than trying to eradicate it. I think the materialistic atheists are going to continue to lose relevance as it turns out there are sciences that make way more interesting discoveries about our religious minds than they do.

[@rexsovereign7474]

A non-atheist thinks your comment is brilliant.

[@williamschlass4598]

I think when they say religious minds, they are speaking more about the need to have a worldview that grounds you in some way. I dont think theres anyone saying humans have to be superstitious.

[@questor55]

Sure, "moral systems" works for most intents and purposes. Religion adds another layer that I'm not qualified (smart enough) to try and define.

[@williamschlass4598]

Its definitely a very complicated subject. The more I'm trying to learn about philosophy, the more I realize I don't know about philosophy. Its starting to become pretty overwhelming but it just makes me feel that being agnostic on a lot of subjects is generally the wisest position to have when lacking extensive knowledge in any specific branch of philosophy.

[@raffacasting]

We this 3 men start taking Ayauasca we will have nice books to read.

[@mysticchords]

My respect and admiration for Jordan Petersen is deepening after initially finding his tone difficult to resonate with and it'll be wonderful when his brilliant intellectual understanding and articulation is softened by the nectar in his heart, once that opens more fully... It's obvious that he's went through some kind of spiritual awakening, but like so many of us in Western societal conditioning he's had a lot of intellectual layers to navigate through, and once the Reality beyond intellectual conditioning is known as an experience, as opposed to theorised it's a different game all together. Thank you for holding such an open space for Rupert to share his rare and balanced perspective on reality and our place within it as humans. Your questions evoked beautifully insightful responses. Rupert, for me is a person who demonstrates that mysticism and science are one and the same thing when liberated from dogma. Please do what you can to bring them together for a discussion around these topics.

[@rexsovereign7474]

Thanks so much for putting on this interview for a second opinion of Peterson by Rupert. I don't think he accurately characterized Peterson in his Vernon interview, and now we know why. He didn't review much of Peterson's material (which is understandable, there is so much of it). I've seen all along how beautifully Rupert and Jordan dovetail on the transcendental and existential questions. It's good to see Rupert coming up to speed. A dialog between the two would be utterly mind blowing IMO. I would like to hear Peterson's views on morphic resonance, and Rupert's views on Jungian archetypes.

[@tmcleanful]

Rebel Wisdom: I'm funneling views to this interview - excellent work! Jordan Peterson is most valuable when his prominence is used to inform the audience that the presuppositions they are hammered with by the absolutist materialists are not "facts" written in stone. Two years ago I was feeling pretty low about how little discussion there was regarding these issues. Then came the eucatastrophe that is Jordan Peterson.

[@Eusebeia7]

I was indoctrinated with deliberately false facts as a biology major to prove evolution. Much later I watched two ex-biology professors present evidence contrary to evolution when this proof came into my mind. Evolution is false on an eighth-grade rational man level. The evolutionary theory fits into the exact shape of a classic snow cone just replace the ice chips with new species and positive mutations which do not exist but should be commonplace. At the point of the snow cone is the "origins of life" which after over fifty years they do not have a mechanism for a self-replicating protein. The canning industry puts all the parts into a can billions of times a year and depends on neo-biogenesis not occurring. Information science shows that DNA can only degrade. Currently, we are in the sixth extinction crisis that of large animals such as the lion, cheetah, and giraffe. Extinction crises are not predicted by the evolutionary theory but rather more and more new species. Creation is an upside down snow cone which is devolving through entropy to the extinction of the biosphere just as we are seeing. God bless you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Kent J. Nauman ex-MD (axis I schizophrenia (chronic))

[@Eusebeia7]

Rupert Sheldrake in his book "The Science Delusion" at #8 the mind gives the example of a British NHS long-term study of hydrocephalus babies where they found a university mathematics major with just 1 cm of brain tissue on CT scan disproving physicalism as the answer to the mind-body problem of philosophy. Now, using the Court's rules of evidence compare this very short video to what is below. kzbin.info/www/bejne/boelZ5uVl7yFabs which is Spirit Science 9 ~ Astral Projection. “Earth’s Earliest Ages” by H. G. Pember, on page 253: “Man is a spirit in prison, and so he must be content to abide, until God unlocks the door of his Cell. But if he will have instant enjoyment by a premature excitation of potentialities which are reserved for future development, he can only do so feloniously breaking through his dungeon bars, and thus shattering the harmony of his present nature.” And on pages 255-6 “For our body appears to be not only a prison, but also a fortress, and is, not improbably, devised for the very purpose of sheltering us in some degree from the corrupting influence of demons. In its normal condition it effectually repels their more open and violent assaults: but if once we suffer the fence to be broken down, we are no longer able to restore it, and are henceforth exposed to the attacks of malignant enemies.” Job 38:21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? (You know this, because you were born then, the number of your days is great!) Ecclesiastes 1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. (The temporal material reality is a simulation of the eternal spiritual reality) 2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. I Corinthians 15:44...There is a (ESTI) natural body, and there is a (ESTI) spiritual body. Ecc 12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit (spirit-man) shall return unto God who gave it. Ecc 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? (no crossover with animals) Ecc 12:8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity. (see kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZnJoKJvg6d4pdk which is You are a Simulation & Physics Can Prove It: George Smoot at TEDxSalford) 1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's (spirit, mind, consciousness) work (soul, personality, character) shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire (God); and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 1Co_3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 1Co_3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 1Pe_1:17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning (temporary residence) here in fear: Matthew 16:26 For what is a man (spirit, mind, consciousness) profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul (personality, character)? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Compare the above to, the medical model of “Man as a Machine” with the Leonardo da Vinci drawing of a man in a circle (Vitruvian Man) which views the human mind as the product of the body just as a song is the product of a musical instrument. Then consider the human predators known as psychopaths. Thomas Sheridan has a lot of KZbin videos on Psychopaths. These people are extremely dangerous but wear a "Mask of Sanity" even though they are morally insane “Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing” and “Without Conscience.” I did not read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago but he is said to have said that he asked the old people why all this happened and they said because we forgot about God and that after Solzhenitsyn did the research he could not do a better summary. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were political psychopaths. In psychiatric theory as taught in medical school, the ultimate goal of every human being is to pass along as many copies of their DNA as possible and this is evaluated based on adaptation verse maladaptation of Social Darwinism. Psychopaths are the ultimate adapter and the male psychopath has 10-12 kids I have read making them A+ mentally healthy. The fraudian psychiatric theory is based on the evolution of atheistic scientific materialism, not the theological standard of good and evil which will not fit into psychoanalysis other than as a type of neurosis or psychosis (Moses talking to an inanimate object, a burning bush). If you believe in Big Bang and Evolution, what that boils down to is that you believe that your great ancestor was a rock while your great progeny will be a self-evolving computer. In Scientific American years ago they had an article on machine intelligence which came to the conclusion that machine intelligence will out evolve us but be our offspring. Also in Scientific American Archives creationism is listed as a type of evolution of technology. This atheistic scientific materialistic evolution is supposed to be occurring on many planets (like in Star Trek) so there will be many of these self-evolving immortal life forms that primitive people used to think were gods like in Hinduism but atheistic scientific materialism is smart enough to know that they are not gods but rather immortal self-evolved life forms.” By Kent J. Nauman ex-MD (Axis I schizophrenia (chronic))

[@Eusebeia7]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJyXiqSGqdt9l9E which is Under The Dome - Full Documentary

[@iankemp8535]

perhaps you should have a chat to Kill the so called clever person who thinks he knows it all

[@j.h252]

JBP is a little Einstein, a real eucatastrophe as you call it. He is an introextrovert in one person, who went very deep, harvested there honestly and carefully gold, hammered his findings from all sides and has now a very well founded idea about many things and shares these with us now. His train started long ago and is coming out of the tunnel of learnig. His reasom makes far left and far right crazy, cause he makes their false ideologies implode. He is a gift for our time.

[@normanvanrooy3113]

Another fantastic discussion by David of Rebel Wisdom. I can not get enough of this stuff. I went to the Rebel Wisdom website and am still licking my mental lips thinking which one next, and then after that which one and after that. A huge body of significant work with significant minds. This is the most enjoyable interview of Rupert that I have watched and listened to. Excellent set and lighting and sound as usual David of Rebel Wisdom. I wish you continued good health and success acquiring spiritually oriented deep thinkers like Rupert. I suspect you are looking forward to a possible conversation between Jordan Peterson and the illustrious delusional Richard Dawkins is in order. Don't you reckon? LOL

[@ryanhoffman5477]

This conversation is a nuclear power thought bomb on atheist world view. We have to get Jordan Peterson and this Guy on a podcast and in a live setting. Man this Guy needs to be on Ruben Report, Joe Rogan podcast, and more. Great conversation.

[@keriford54]

pretty sure he's been on Joe Rogan

[@ryanhoffman5477]

Thanks for the Info, He's now my new KZbin adventure for the time being.

[@MattCasters]

Oh please, he doesn't get beyond some unsubstantiated slogans. If there is more than the material world, prove it. If you think conscienceless doesn't come from the material world: prove it. Just spouting some mumbo jumbo makes him no more interesting than Deepak "WooWoo" Chopra.

[@vishwajeetdamor2302]

Matt Casters the proof of burden is on you... you're assuming that matter is not conscious. We're conscious and there's a high probability of life existing outside of earth if you just apply basic probability and statistics. There's no conscious in matter is an absurd claim with no proof, maybe there's no consciousness like religion suggests coz i find that to be a simplistic view. But i think there can be higher consciousness being than us, heck even we might create a higher conscious being in future aka A.I.

[@redrickoshea]

Jonathan Renaud Billions of people believed the world is flat and that its the center of the universe. People in the past came up with ideas to try to explain their reality. For most of human history, we’ve lacked the knowledge to put forward a better idea than religion and spirituality, but this doesn’t make them true. Very few atheists write these beliefs off and just assume it’s all wrong, they just ask “is there anything that suggests these beliefs are true? If not, why should we believe it?”

[@jerodcathcart3230]

Very respectful, clear, and concise. Appreciate the in-depth break down of atheism, you have said some groundbreaking things here, articulated very well, thank you!

[@carolwolf9614]

Wonderful discussion. Thank you.

[@pimtool9351]

Sheldrake is genius.

[@risanaomi4958]

Rebel! Thank you so much! Good on you so nice to see these discussions begin to explode :D

[@jsab0]

Here's how to reframe the debate: Both belief and disbelief in religious ideas are missing the point entirely. Like a brutally honest scientist with zero biases towards the results we are meant to experiment with loving prayer, emitting love, meditation, surrendering thoughts, surrender in general, letting go, karma, etc. for our self in order to discover the truth for oneself. Atheism is dishonest in that it's a refusal to open-mindedly and with humility to experiment for ONESELF to see if all such things are true and effective. One's own life has to become the scientific experiment. It has nothing to do with evidence or so-called "proof" from others. Miraculous synchronicities and far more mind-blowing spiritual experiences do occur as a result. The oneness and interconnectedness of everything and everyone reveals itself. People are trying to intellectualize about that which is beyond the intellect. In fact, mystical/spiritual experiences occur in the absence of thought. "Zen is not thinking about anything." -Bodhidharma Religions typically start with one individual that has a full-blown and permanent mystical/spiritual experience of the transcendent Divine Reality of Infinite and Eternal Oneness as one's true nature, and then unenlightened people misinterpret and screw up the original teachings because they haven't experienced it for themselves. All religions have errors, flaws, mistranslations and limitations, in different ways and for different reasons. Different Enlightened beings tackle the issue in different ways based upon their audience, the language of the times and other cultural factors. Some religions become more watered down than others throughout history, and in the case of Islam, because Muhammad fell from Grace, is actually more political than spiritual (total world domination is it's overall doctrine). It's made up of both highly spiritual and overtly "satanic" teachings. While Jesus, Buddha and others refused the classic spiritual temptations that arise, such as worldly power, dominance over others, selfishness, sexual hedonism and sensorial overindulgence, after 13 years of preaching submission to Allah and almost nobody listening, it seems Muhammad accepted every temptation that came up.

[@pn5721]

jsab0 Good ideas here. Any fav books you recommend?

[@nunosousa9462]

Good ideas. Not sure I agree with the interpretation given to Islam. What is known about those humans who had enduring mystical experiences of oneness (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed...) is kind of limited and shrouded in a lot of religious bias.

[@jsab0]

Pequenos Passos Many Christian Saints and Mystics throughout the centuries have given pretty detailed descriptions of the temptations that arise. There's even modern day examples of Enlightened people who fell from Grace where sex scandals occurred and their earlier teachings are very different than their newer teachings. Osho, Ramesh Balsekar and Muktadananda are 3 prime examples. The in-depth research and explanations from Bill Warner about Islam and the life of Muhammad make it quite clear that Muhammad SUDDENLY became a different person after going to Medina. He took up the sword, and the verses of the Quran when arranged in chronological order, goes from spiritual wisdom, to terror, beheading, Jew hatred and the like.

[@InHousePussy]

I can only speak for myself, but I'm an atheist simply because I don't believe gods and such exist. All good? Good.

[@RanEncounter]

jsab0 So to you atheism is closing the door to experimenting with things while most atheist see exactly the opposite.

[@markdallaire278]

For those interested in how Jordan Peterson fits into the whole debate about modernism and post-modernism, atheism and religious belief, I recommend looking at the commentaries on Peterson’s thinking by Paul VanderKlay. He’s been engaged in what he calls his “Peterson project” for a year or more now, including commentaries on debates Peterson has with Harris, Dillahunty, etc. He’s got lots of stuff on Peterson on his KZbin channel. And thanks to Rebel Wisdom for this video. I fully agree with the first commentator...you’re doing great work.

[@BuckandOden]

Rupert is an under-rated voice, I think he's one of the best thinkers on these topics we have today...

[@tdottim]

Wow. How have I not known this man until now? 15 minutes after finding him I'm convinced he's the most important thinker for this time.

[@sasank6400]

Yes, and he has lived an amazing life. Cambridge to India to Harvard. Conducted important experiments, wrote multiple books, discussed his ideas with people like J krishnamurti and david bohm. Not just a thinker but a doer as well. Simple but great man !

[@tiagoama9403]

wow thats a talk i wanted to hear and we might have a little more awnsers if we put Rupert and Jordan serching for them in a deep search with eachother

[@alexanderbw2857]

Thanks Rebel. More great stuff

[@NuanceOverDogma]

Thank you so much for this interview

[@baalstone675]

Fascinating! Watching this off a phone in Port Moresby, PNG. My people need some REBEL WISDOM. Keep up the good work brother.

[@smilernok]

dont think Sheldrake debates ! he tells, he is awsome

[@TheArjulaad]

Mr. Sheldrake is quite inspiring, no matter the degree of agreement . ✌🏻

[@KipIngram]

I've watched a lot of Sheldrake the last couple of days; prior to that I was only slightly familiar with him. He's clearly one of the most thoughtful, insightful thinkers of our age.

[@MerrittCluff]

Thank you for this interview. Sheldrake is calm and reasonable with a helpful view of dualism.

[@Joshualbatross]

I hope Rupe and Dr. Peterson get a chance to speak with each other one day. Rupert was the first person that came to mind when I first discovered Dr. Peterson back in 2016 and I'm glad things are in motion now.

[@truelovecafecanada290dunda3]

Thank you. Mr Sheldrake has provided an excellent analysis.

[@yossarian1633]

I've been a Sheldrake fan since his Morphogenic fields era, it warms my soul to hear speak about and praise Peterson. The conversation was illuminating besides, I learned a few things I never knew. Hope these two men have a talk on KZbin at some point, bound to be an interesting conversation.

[@j.h252]

Its funny how Atheists always have to make a battle out of their unbelive. Not very souverain I must say! Also Matt was trying to declare victory against Peterson. Atheists always throw some traps and hope the opponent will step on them, what a childish behavior, only to get more certainty in their unbelive. There is always a lot of vanity, arrogance and superiority posing involved, which is only covering their uncertenty. They make the same impression to me like the Greys in the saga of Momo, a bit bloodless and zombie like. I believe in something, rather than in nothing. Too complex is life and the universe with its fine tuning in many aspects, to grow out of randomness, also Sheldrake is writing about. But believing is not knowing. There will never be a proof for God or Nongod which is satisfying others. I can live with my believe without having to missionary anybody, which is sadely not the case with the rigorous attempts of many Atheists to convince others to abandon their 'stupid' belives. Atheists want to play God themselfs, a luciferic idea with a lack of humbleness.

[@j.h252]

So, why were tribal rituals not realised in an atheistic, bloodless, zombiean manner, after taking magic mushrooms, why were those rituals spiritual? Cause the mushrooms opened their eyes to vaster realms than the ones they lived in in normal conditions. Since, there is no proof possibel for God or Nongod, for me there is more evidence for God than nothing, you can decide what ever is more evident for you. My problem is only with the messianic Atheists, not with the decision of individuals to choose the Nongod card. It's funny how occupied Atheists are with belive, even though they dont belive, a sign of uncertenty, not sovereignty. Somebody who is a natural unbeliver, does not have to think and talk all the time about believers and making fun of them or being aggressive like you. This speaks about a person who is fundamentally uncertain and unsovereign.

[@adammckevin6330]

Hahaha "Matt destroyed Dr Peterson" .. Haha

[@AP-bo1if]

Hank, atheists like you are chance of the gaps worshipers. you worship the god of chance. which is an insane position. atheism is the dumbest and most dangerous religion known in existence.

[@artoffugue333]

Facsinating interview. By only beef is that it's too short. Thank you this upload!

[@tom909_ooo6]

Very interesting and thought provoking conversation, thank you.

[@rifleattheplayground]

If you want to have a discussion on materialist worldview vs religious one, it will inevitably conclude with the material, because in order to compare them, you have to have some measure by which to do so. If that measure is immeasurable, then it is immaterial, and therefore cannot truly be compared. If you choose a measure that is measurable, then you're right back in materialist domain where Rupert already concluded the atheist wins. As a side note that kind of ties into this. Even if atheists are correct about the material, most of us are agnostic atheists, meaning we aren't claiming there is no god, but that we aren't convinced there is one. The same way I'm not convinced that 2+2=5. I don't even discount religious experience, although I do think that it's attribution to the supernatural is unwarranted, although totally understandable.

[@anthonygadaleta3427]

As a vacillating human secularist/agnostic I have to say that I'm most impressed with Rupert Sheldrake - particularly his reasoning,demeanour, expressive calmness , gentleness etc. - a truly good sincere man. Thoroughly enjoyed this discussion :)

[@phillipkokesh6152]

so excellent; thank you both! 👍😉

[@JanicePhillips]

While Mr. Sheldrake's name is not unfamiliar to me, I have as yet to acquaint myself with this fine gentleman. I seem to have found a few empty spaces on my bookshelf. I can not abide emptiness when it comes to knowledge, opinions, or ideas which may lead to answers or yet, as so often the case, more questions! Thank you both for a wonderful discussion and opening yet another door to travel through.

[@interestpart260]

Great work Rebel Wisdom! Thank you!

[@kyletindal]

You bring up very insightful questions and your conversations are always engaging and thought provoking. Keep up the great work :)

[@MrNiceHk]

Rupert Sheldrake is right up there with Terrence Mckenna in terms of intellectual insights, I could listen to him for days and I am not religious.

[@gireenlaw8374]

Please arrange a discussion between JP and Rupert, that would be an intellectual treat!

[@isaacdanso1036]

To all intents and purposes I'm an atheist, since I don't actually subscribe to any notion of a God existing, but am often hesitant to identify as such for fear of being automatically lumped in with the militant, card-carrying ilk of non-believers. Nonetheless I'm an atheist, but must confess that I find myself intrigued and even quite riveted by much of what Sheldrake is saying here, particularly concerning consciousness, the possibilities of a transcendental source for it and the inadequacies of a mechanistic worldview. Still though, for me, plenty of issues remain with his critique of atheism; At 41:52 he states "it's not part of human nature to treat everyone as having equal value" and that "we didn't always do it". He also makes reference to there having been "a whole religion in India based on a caste system." Notably, the interviewer concurs and affirms his point by quoting Jordan Peterson saying: "the ethic you (atheists) think is derived from rationality is actually coming from a far deeper place." But if the Hindus, with their belief in God, did not espouse values that would lead them to treat everyone as having equal value, but rather to impose a caste system, then atheism isn't the problem. Also, if treating everyone as having equal value isn't part of human nature, and we didn't always do it, doesn't that prove that it's ultimately arrived at through rational means, like learning over time and essentially, consequentialism? And besides, I thought Sheldrake's whole deal was to argue for the divine nature of God within all human beings which I'm assuming is that "deeper place" the interviewer alluded to that supposedly accounts for why we place inherent value on others... Unless I'm simply mistaken and Sheldrake's not making an argument for the mere belief in God, but just arguing for his own religion, in which case my point still stands that atheism then, is not the problem, because if it's only his religious tradition which can motivate us to 'love our neighbour as ourselves', as oppose to a belief in God in general, then he ought to be implicating anybody who does not share his particular faith, including adherents of other religions, not just atheists. And again, if he supposes that the ethic of treating everyone as having equal value originates in Christianity, then how does he explain the treatment of the 3.5 million slaves taken from Africa by the British empire who were champions of the Christian faith to say the least? Their belief in God didn't induce them to treat those who they enslaved as having equal value. It seems to me that a more reasonable explanation for the change in social attitudes throughout history is just that: a change in social attitudes throughout history; a long, drawn out and very gradual process of cumulative enlightenment, ultimately empirical in nature and often leading to improvements.

[@yatevale539]

Brillant Rupert Sheldrake, wonderfull mind.

[@TerryDashner]

It is so refreshing to hear a knowledgeable rebuttal to mechanism materialism. I can't seem to get enough of these videos.

[@tmac1742]

Sheldrake-Peterson dialogue: WE NEED IT NOW!!!

[@10use]

How do I give two thumbs up?

[@josephlavoie2253]

I will probably listen to more conversations with Rupert Sheldrake.

[@aristhocrat]

Finally a level headed analysis of JP.

[@SuperStargazer666]

Someone please put Rupert Sheldrake and Richard Dawkins in the same room.

[@livelongenoughtoliveforeve1114]

there is no comparison whatsoever between Peterson and McKenna - no one outshines McKenna in terms of his intellectual delivery

[@fs5775]

....as well as his verbal acuity and playful imagination. And McKenna was also fond of self-deprecation, which was refreshing for someone so brilliant. Sheldrake is also right in that Terrence was a true rebel outsider, unlike Peterson

[@nameRICHARD]

Excellent interview by a skilled interviewer - unlike the infamous Cathy Newman affair. Rupert Sheldrake has been a favourite scientist of mine since reading his 80's tome "presence of the past". That book helped develop my skepticism around what our civilization smugly thinks it knows. His recent book "the science delusion" offers even more thought stimulation.

[@minorityblogger]

Enjoy this opportunity, Sheldrake is one of our greatest and definitely one of the deepest thinkers of our time. Also, one of the greatest crimes of our time is the “establishment” turn away from this brilliant mind for the sole reason he does not bow to the mediocrity running rampant w/in the “establishment ranks”.

[@djrg7921]

" my epiphenomenon brain Farts are better than yours!"

[@nameRICHARD]

One of the best quotes about materialism that I have heard has stuck with me for years - it was from Deepak Chopra and he simply said " people are hypnotized by the superstition of materialism". You can take those words on many levels from simply a comment about our love of material goods to a deeper level applying more to mainstream classical science.

[@mylord9340]

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Sheldrake. I have many questions about many things that he said. It seems to me that a major dispute is between those who want to ground morality in an undefined spiritual entity or consciousness and those who don't. There is an implication that it is necessary to ground morality in something outside of and beyond human existence so as to give those values more authority. And it seems the interviewer has a bias for the Judeo-Christian story. If one considers that morality developed with cultural evolution then it is not too difficult to see that religious ideas on morality have been a part of that evolution. It is incorrect to think that modern morality began with the Enlightenment. Enlightenment ideas about morality were just further evolution from ideas of morality that came before. Ideas of morality based on religion were part of the cultural evolution. It is incorrect to believe that because morality based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics preceded Enlightenment ideas about morality that we must conclude that Enlightenment ideas of morality are based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics. We don't say Newton's law of gravitation is the source for Einstein's theory of general relativity. These are ideas that are evolving from what came before. In regards to the desire to believe in a God and to ground morality in a God, why does this imply that such a God must be good according to our idea of the good? For example the God of the Hebrew Scriptures YHWH says in Isaiah.45:7-9.. "I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity (evil). I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things. O sky, rain down from above! Let the clouds send down showers of deliverance! Let the earth absorb it so salvation may grow, and deliverance may sprout up along with it. I, the Lord, create it. One who argues with his creator is in grave danger, one who is like a mere shard among the other shards on the ground! The clay should not say to the potter, “What in the world are you doing? Your work lacks skill!” This God says he can do whatever he wants, including evil, and it is not for his created beings to question his actions. Can we ground morality if God admits he is capricious? Rather than thinking that the morality promoted by secular humanists as being derived from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethic it would be more accurate to understand secular ethics as the result of cultural evolution that included the best ideas and values from religious ideas along the way. I don't think the desire to believe in God or an ultimate consciousness is a problem for humanity. Problems develop however when we create rules and restrictions and claim that those rules and restrictions have authority from that ultimate consciousness or God.

[@mylord9340]

@BVale what I mean is that morality had it's beginning when humans began to formulate rules to govern their tribes. Over time those rules evolved to become more sophisticated, and today's ethics and morality is the product of that cultural evolution. Science followed a similar trajectory. Our scientific achievements as of today began in similar humble beginnings. Over time better tools and more rational thought were developed culminating in the understanding of nature that we have today. With ethics and morality, religions were developed as part of that cultural evolution along the way. So I don't think it is accurate to say that we get our ethics and morality from religion, in the same way that it would be inaccurate to say we get science from Sir Isaac Newton. Thanks.

[@mylord9340]

@BVale I would not make the statement that "the Enlightenment could never have happened without Christianity" although I would not challenge your opinion. I will just point out that I would not also say that quantum physics would not have developed without Sir Isaac Newton. There would have been another person or persons who would have figured out the science of "Newtonian" mechanics, and, instead of Newtonian mechanics we would have had "Antonini's Mechanics, as an example. Likewise, if Christianity had not developed, a similar religion would have been invented with the similar ethical principles, and instead of Christianity preceding the Enlightenment, there would have been another religion as a forerunner to the Enlightenment. By the way, I do not think all of the Enlightenment ideas were correct. I do not agree that the crucifixion of Jesus was a decisive "event inaugurating that quantum leap". That is a opinion driven by Mr. Holland's ideology. From what we can tell from history the crucifixion of Jesus and his existence was rather insignificant and unnoteworthy. Jesus was just one among many Jews who were crucified by the Romans. It was Pauline Christianity and Saul-Paul's ideology that led to Christianity. Saul-Paul was far more important to history than Jesus. This would take a longer discussion to explain. Now, in regards to slavery, let's look at the Jewish scriptures and the Torah. The individuals who wrote the Hebrew scriptures believed that slavery of foreigners was ethical. The YHWH character even in Genesis cursed an entire nation, the Canaanites, before they were even born to be "slaves of slaves". In the Torah, initially YHWH permitted the Israelites to enslave each other, but then later commanded that the Israelites should in fact not enslave each other. The law was changed. YHWH commanded that instead of enslaving a poor Israelite, it was better to employ him as a hired laborer. However, after making enslaving fellow Israelites unlawful, YHWH compensated the Israelites by telling them that they could get their slaves from foreigners, gentiles. So the Hebrew Scriptures does not state that the institution of slavery is an evil thing. It is only evil for the Israelites to practice among themselves. The New Testament writers also do not state that slavery is an evil institution. Rather, the writers commanded that slaves should obey their masters while encouraging masters to treat their slaves kindly. It was the Enlightenment ideas that led to the eventual abolition of slavery. As you probably know there were Christians and Protestants on both sides of the slavery debate. So the matter of slavery has nothing to do with the practicality of slavery. Enslavement of enemies and foreigners was from the beginning considered "ethical". In regards to the Jewish scriptures, it was only unethical and immoral for the Israelites to enslave themselves. The enslavement of foreigners, gentiles, was perpetually a part of the Torah.

[@ericmartinbosse8405]

Dr.Peterson has debated Sam Harris a few times in the past. was very civil and interesting.

[@cryptaker]

Great video, although Rupert's audio is a bit quiet.

[@riki9707]

I'd like to listen to a conversation between Jordan Peterson and Rupert Sheldrake. Both are great thinkers and well-versed in the works of Jung. Additionally I think that Jordan has a more abstract approach to religion, belief systems and God whereas Rupert has a more practical approach in the form av spiritual and religious practices which help us to make contact with higher realms. I think the combination of these two approaches could prove very fruitful. What do you others think?

[@winskypinsky]

I would stand in a line-up, all day, in the rain, without an umbrella, with non-waterproof mascara JUST to buy a ticket to see Sheldrake and The Lobfather together on stage. I’ll call Peterson and see if he can make it-wouldn’t that be fun!

[@161157gor]

Rupert Sheldrake is a bridge to past times shared with his good friend Terence McKenna. It would be very interesting to hear a current dialogue between Rupert & Dennis McKenna. As far as I'm aware this has never taken place, whether by design or otherwise, but I'm sure they would have a few interesting anecdotes to share...

[@carbon1479]

TY. The John Gray stuff sounds interesting as far as internal critique goes, I'll have to check that one out.

[@Ableseamansainz]

Great combo!

[@artoffugue333]

If I was fortunate enough to be as articulate and eloquent and in my speech as Sheldrake, these are excatly the kinds of things I'd say. Not that agree with him 100%, but I seem to share a kind of "collective consciousness" of mind.

[@zgobermn6895]

Hi there Rebel Wisdom. Wonderful interview with Sheldrake! I'd like to suggest something. Not sure if you're familiar with philosopher Roger Scruton. He's some decades ahead of Peterson in terms of fighting pomo neo-marxism and reductionist scientism. Perhaps you can do an interview with him. Or check out 2 of his books-- Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands (a critique of pomo neo-marxists), and The Soul of the World (a carefully nuanced argument for the irreducible need for the religious understanding of the world). It would be great to see Peterson and Scruton in dialogue (though Scruton is a bit advanced in years already).

[@Sapienite1]

What's so dismissable about 'religious' and spiritual experiences arising from brain-activity? I have not yet heard Peterson argue that such is not the case. The closest he gets to projecting religious-spiritual experience into something mysterious, such as in the recent discussion between him and Sam Harris, is his insistence on some "substrate" underlying those experiences, which often states is based in evolutionary biology, which is still confined in the human brain and body, not some projected idol. It is important for us to realize when we are arguing for top-down causality (emanation/god-given/abstract-given) and when we are arguing more rightly for bottom-up causality/constitution (emergence/evolved/developed). This is yet another place where Ken Wilber's integralism could help fill in these gaps in the discussion, helping out Harris, Peterson, and Rupert Sheldrake here.

[@fivestarexteriors]

I have thoroughly enjoyed and benefitted from all your interviews.

[@sylvanmoir4094]

A lot of what I call the science-as-religion types , who generally subscribe to mechanical materialism, have an interesting and telling attitude towards what they describe as "anecdotes" . The non-anecdotal nature of good science is one of its prime assets and one of the things distinguishing derivations of truth that can be trusted from those that can't, they think Many make it essential always in settling questions of fact. But none (that I have ever encountered) care to notice that "anecdotal" is not an absolute category,- it is something on a continuum and HAS to be and cannot ever, in factual knowledge of the world, be completely eliminated. Completely non-anecdotal knowledge would presumably be in logic or maths, where there is no reference to "the external world". As soon as you require factual knowldege of the external world you need an element of the anecdotal. The great hadron collider is in a very real sense constructed with the sole purpose of delivering anecdotes . If there was no person to read off results, to examine results of collisions - at some point using their organs of sense and powers of thought and interpretation - there would be just a collosally expensive piece of equipment serving no purpose whatsoever. The anecdote is THE CRUCIAL part, in many ways, even in science. Of course the anecdote, which scientists boast so thoughtlessly about having excluded from the holy precincts of science - involves CONSCIOUSNESS.

[@RafaMartinelli]

Thank you for this! Rupert is awesome!

[@Knee_Boy64]

Really happy I subscribed. The more I watch the better it gets.

[@holarc]

rupert has true brilliance i believe. yet for me he also sometimes seems rather confused as to what is spirituality and what is religion, and sometimes categorizes and separates things too much. for me, meditation in itself is no more "spiritual" than it is religious. actually, if practiced regularly, i see that as a 'kind' of religious practice in a sense. he states that god is 'beyond' humanity, that unlike secular humanists the religious do not see humanity as god. why can't it be both, that god is humanity (at least the most spiritual of humanity), as well as any consciousness/wisdom 'beyond' humanity?

[@atchamomie]

I really liked his point of view before he started calling Atheists depressed. They have no sense of connection to nature, other people? Huh? Then he connects that to "vast number of people on antidepressant pills.." That was so narrow minded in my view. I think Atheists have a consistently positive outlook on Consciousness, however wait-and-see it is.

[@williamschlass4598]

Yeah this whole interview was cringeworthy and he came off as smug and fond of strawmen

[@deskryptic]

I've know a lot of bitter atheists. Smug one to, that treat you like a fool for showing any sign of "religions". I think there is culture of arrogance and even violence (intellectual) among some schools of atheism. Its a thing.

[@williamschlass4598]

@Snalem Snolek Excellent retort

[@DPSufferer]

I was not pleasantly surprised when i discovered that this wasnt a dialogue between sheldrake and peterson :.(

[@007Anukul]

awesome talk

[@wizardoflolz5626]

The fact that still skeptics debate over an anthropomorphic, humanoid GOD / Unit still boggles my mind.

[@inyourfaceicity5604]

What makes materialists and atheists different isn't that we believe that the universe is totally unconscious. It's just that we don't pretend to have answers for question that have (thus far) remained outside the scope of scientific inquiry - the question of the origin of consciousness among them.

[@deskryptic]

Sheldrake went deep on this one. And he was thorough. Peterson and Mckenna- no contest. Mckenna had his channel flowing- constantly. Peterson is a struggler that breaks into inspiration at moments. Also- Mckenna was a 'feminist" while Peterson keeps company (whether he intends to our not) with some decidedly patriarchal heads and (as Sheldrake pointed out) has made a carrer around the assertion that gender politics had gone to far (or that the left in general is tilting toward fascism or at least the policing of thought). Peterson flirts with nationalists discourses and the unique "superiority" of western civilization, whereas Mckenna felt that Western Civ. had gone wrong centuries ago (though it had underground streams where true gnosis was preserved). Sheldrake might also believe in the uniqueness of western civ. but he shows that he is awake the uniqueness of other traditions and the role they play in our current cultural landscape. Mckenna was way beyond nationalism. Even humanism. Dude foresaw the transformation of the species if not the whole planet. He is light years ahead of Peterson. That might be a literal statement. I also appreciate how Sheldrake traced the historical roots of human rights as originating in Christianity, looked at several schools of atheism, and spoke to the fundamentalism and even hatred that you see as part of many atheistic "cultures" (they share more with the Christians than they like to admit). He also contradicted the idea that spirituality is on the decline- we are just in a moment of the fusion/dissonance between traditions and the information coming in from the sciences/ fresh revelations. Finally I appreciate how he pointed to the contradictions and historical (lets call it)" immaturity" of many enlightenment thinkers when it came to questions of human equality and African Slavery. Compare this to Peterson's flirtation with Nietzchean discourse on human equality. I hope he doesn't get totally swallowed by the patriarchal-nationalist-fundamentalism movement re-surging worldwide (predicted by Mckenna) that might try to merge with atheistic capitalist-genetic-engineering-eugenicists. Just saying.But this is great interview. Sheldrake shows himself as an elder, capable of courageous, nuanced (rather than party) thinking, with a long view of culture(s) and historical development. Thanks for posting.

[@iankclark]

This was very enlightening. I always liked Rupert Sheldrake but this talk hit some profound notes for me. Add him to the pantheon of the intellectual dark web.

[@inquisitor4635]

I hold to a "Christian" view and belief because of my very first dream/vision I ever remember having and a few other out-of-body experiences that later followed. My first dream, while I was still a baby in my crib at fourteen months of age, was of a revelatory nature. I never preach or attempt to convert others to Christianity, but I do suggest that everyone read the Book of Mathew one time and just see if they are moved by it in anyway. I also suggest that one should examine the aspect of Biblical evil and how it supposedly operates in the world for more of a confirmation of the supernatural. The Genesis 6 story and fallen angels part of this study. Micheal Heiser has two books that are very good in this regard, the latest being Reversing Hermon.

[@jeremycointin1996]

This guy cuts right to the bone!

[@jaime667]

thank you for introducing Mr Sheldrake. Great moderate gentleman. Good to add to JBP mindframe.

[@favoriteladyl]

Love your channel. Thank you.

[@brianbob7514]

What a interesting man. a few years ago I would have thought a lot of this was just religious rambling.

[@capoman1]

14:00 Sheldrake's description of "consciousness inside all matter" and consciousness inside the brain" is very simplistic and presumptuous. It does not require asserting that "all matter is conscious" or "the entire universe is conscious" to acknowledge a phenomenon of consciousness. For instance, consider the phenomenon of lightning. Does recognizing the phenomenon of lightning mean that we must assert that "all matter has lightning WITHIN IT???" Or do we say lightning is an emergent phenomenon? One that occurs when matter collects into a certain formation? And the phenomenon only occurs and remains a possibility while the matter collection stays in that formation? Sheldrake said "consciousness INSIDE OF THE BRAIN," which is again very simplistic and an immature way to describe how phenomenon occur. Is the lightning "held inside of the storm?" Or do we just say "lightning is something that happens when matter arranges into a storm?" The phenomenon of consciousness is no different than lightning that occurs when the conditions of a storm arise. Lightning can occur as long as the conditions are correct, and consciousness can occur as long as the conditions (called a functional brain) can occur. It is this type of basic rhetorical description that can allow the speaker to have done nothing more than describe that "phenomenon occur under proper conditions" and suggest to the reader that somehow something has been revealed as extraordinary or requiring and external consciousness.

[@Mike_Lennox]

Rupert Sheldrake: "the problem with that is that materialists and atheists are left with the problem of consciousness" "the point is that the very existence of human consciousness is a massive problem for materialism and has led to consciousness studies " Sheldrake makes the point that theists are not left with the problem of consciousness. A rational conversation with Sheldrake would be about the defensive behavior of psychological projection. The force of psychological projections such as theism removes the social conditions of inquiry, authenticity and the development of human consciousness.

[@henryhomes2664]

Does the person, "Alan Watts" come to mind?

[@Danny2k38]

Henry Homes yep

[@anthonycalvo7474]

I can’t help but chuckle when I see the title “The Science Delusion,” while reading it on my phone, in a room cool by A/C, after eating food heated by microwaves with a machine powered by electricity, all of which came about through science. The irony is palpable.

[@pedrogo4903]

Get Jordan Peterson and Ken wilber in the same room please .This is very necessary and urgent.

[@swagdragon937]

I'd like to see a rupert and jordan discussion please!

[@oracleofaltoona]

There are many religious people (I am thinking of Christians in the US) who really do not grasp or properly practice their own religion. But that's no reason to throw out religion or deny its validity. We are all on our own path, and some of us are very far off the path. Great discussion. Thank you. PS I do not know if Jordan Peterson is actually Christian. I think he admires Christianity, but he isn't a Christian himself. He might be a deist? I don't know.

[@BlindEyeJones]

Very good talk. It would be great if Peterson, Sheldrake and Scruton got together. The idea of Anonymous Christian is a Catholic belief by the theologian Karl Rahner that people (including atheists) when touched and accepting of God's Grace (though consciously unaware), then they are in fact Christian. They maybe unconscious of it, but nonetheless they are Christian and you know them by their actions. The question is asked why favor humans? Because we are in the image of God and have some of his attributes e.g., creativity. The interviewer was very good and seem to know a lot about Peterson.

[@amk1689]

Walter Peretiatko Thank you for presenting Anonymous Christian concept! I had not heard of it before. It is analogous to what CS Lewis presents in the last book of the Chronicles of Narnia, essentially that any good done is done in the name of God, even if done by an unbeliever. But this is another dimension to that concept. Is there a book you can recommend?

[@BlindEyeJones]

Karl Rahner was originator of the idea but his philosophical stuff is a bugger to read. I suggest just use Wikipedia to get a sense of it. I also believe he has an essay called "Anonymous Christian" and it might be floating somewhere on the net. There are also dialogues with him where he talks about it that I have also seen on the net. Best of Luck!

[@amk1689]

Walter Peretiatko Thanks!

[@BlindEyeJones]

What Rahner is getting at is we can all be wrong about our beliefs. Rahner does make an argument for God -- basically the only way we can know the finite is if we compare it, in an unconscious way, to the infinite and the infinite is God. God is the background or the horizon. According to Rahner we all have the gift of grace which allows us to communicate with God and we can do so consciously or unconsciously, which is reflected in our actions. So an atheist may consciously not believe in God, e.g., because he believes God as a Being who allows cruelty in the world while at the same time claiming to love mankind, and still on an unconscious transcendental level accepts God's grace thereby accepting him. So the atheist is "inculpable" because his heart is right with God, though his thoughts and beliefs are wrong. This is brief and there is a lot to it -- maybe check it out on Wikipedia.

[@sebastianverney7851]

Sheldrake always speaks quietly and lucidly. That alone speaks volumes.

[@djketler]

Get David Bentley Hart on the show, please!

[@jamesrosskelly]

A one on one with Sheldrake and Peterson would be an awesome sporting event! Sheldrake's take on Peterson's hesitancy about his faith is a point well taken. Still, his hesitancy is a little like chicken and waffles they are good together. Post Modern neo-Marxists are just waiting to pounce on him, when he does. I think eventually he will and it will be a story that makes it all make sense.