WHY Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson are BOTH so Frustrating

[@Rob-fb6rw]

Alex was the first ever person to translate a debate between two English speakers😂

[@d-darkness-within]

Not to mention he translated it into English

[@dogsandyoga1743]

As an atheist, I just want to say, thank God for Alex O'Conner. Seriously...

[@danatowne5498]

As a Christian I totally understand your pov here! :)

[@MrSidney9]

Alex is definitely on his game. Dawkins is 83 and not as sharp as he used to be. Jordan Peterson is his same old slippery self who is drunk on archetypes and who comes across as disingenuous and obfuscating when asked to clarify his belief about the Abrahamic and Christian God. Sam Harris, sharper than Dawkins in my opinion, has had 2 debates with Peterson and exposed him . Got him to squirm and admit in the end that the resurrection didn't happen. Now he seems to have backpedaled from this admission.

[@markmooroolbark252]

Dawkins can be just as slippery. Watch him wriggle and squirm when the question of free is raised. He is the same on the issue of consciousness and the origin of life and usually offers up his science of the gaps answer.

[@markmooroolbark252]

Oh, and Sam Harris should never be taken seriously ever again after his utter idiocy and moral bankruptcy was exposed a while back when he was asked about political corruption. He is in a cult and it's cringeworthy to watch someone with such a high opinion of his own intellect demonstrate his ignorance and bigotry with such ridiculous regularity.

[@truincanada]

Oops.

[@ivancarlson953]

JP: "Tidy your room." RD: "Did the room exist, and if so, was it untidy?" JP: "It depends on what you mean by untidy and room."

[@Astropeleki]

Thank you for reposting the full transcript of their debate 🙏

[@raymondtaylor6049]

Have an ice cream 🍦 😊😋😙. Is the ice cream the ice cream, or is it in fact the cone, or is it both?😮

[@MatthewMariano-wl3qj]

Totally. Would love to see someone debate JP using JP's strategy. When in a bind just select any word from the last question and bloviate.

[@mickeyconnor830]

@@MatthewMariano-wl3qj That's a strange way to say, "define," so that both parties can agree that they are talking about the same thing. Though, I do recognize that fine distinctions aren't exactly of paramount import to people who live their social lives primarily in social media comment sections. You should try asking more questions, and making fewer statements.

[@georgedoyle2487]

Worn out joke!

[@Baes_Theorem]

As an atheist who is frustrated by both Peterson and Dawkins on these topics, I appreciated this breakdown. Thank you!

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Welcome!

[@d-darkness-within]

Richard Dawkins showed up just to say he basically doesn't give a shit, lol.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Justifiably so when it comes to theo mythology.

[@stephenkovach6270]

He doesn't take serious the discussion or the topic and will gladly go into the abyss so why engage at all to be an ignorant, lost, a-hole?

[@Caennuck]

Why?

[@The.Dark.Side.Official]

​@@VaughanMcCue the word is bigotry and denialism.

[@fixpontt]

he is ~84 so... what did you expect? i dont even understand why he is even doing this at this age

[@Tai182]

I wouldn't say Peterson doesn't understand Dawkins. I think he understands Dawkins more than Dawkins understands him since he has been scientifically trained. The problem in this conversation is how to communicate the significance of the Theology to a materialist how it can be just as true as the material world.

[@MarkVeltzer]

Nope. Jordan is an idiot.

[@visuality2541]

You can never. The significance of theology is not a matetial fact. And Dawkin's sole interest is in the material factuality. To guys like these, just say it you don't know and you will never know that. You just cannot prove it unless you can time travel.

[@TheThedisliker]

Both were scientifically trained as they both were professors, and both have been cancelled.

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

I would disagree, Peterson is a master at diverting away from intended meanings in a manner one would call postmodernist if it weren't for him denouncing it at every chance he has got.

[@MatthewMariano-wl3qj]

Sorry but I can't agree. Your assertion that both can be correct reminds me of Gould's non-overlapping magisteria. Is the idea then, that we can't disprove anything Peterson says? JP agrees that a camera would have recorded Jesus leaving his tomb (after being dead for three days) but he can't say Jesus arose from the dead because he doesn't understand what that means. C'mon, anyone can answer that question given that situation.

[@ivansa9669]

When right brain and left brain talk to each other, and a conscience acts as a moderator?

[@thetheatreguy9853]

They aren't symmetrical, Dawkins isn't committed to facts and Peterson myth. Dawkins is committed to facts and Peterson is committed to facts through the lens of myth.

[@MarcusAndersonMusic]

Yes. The material cannot incorporate the phenomenological. But a metaphysics based in the phenomenological also represents the material.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@MarcusAndersonMusic Jn 11:35

[@BlacksmithTWD]

I'd rather say that Dawkins is committed to facts through the lens of science and Peterson is committed to facts through the lens of religion. Science is about what is, religions are about what ought, you can't infer an ought from an is or vice versa.

[@alQarafi]

Please read Ancestor’s Tale. These men are not equals.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@alQarafi Who even said they were equals?

[@skyfoil]

I really, really wish Peterson pressed Dawkins on the matter of morality. To me it felt like a really missed opportunity to corner him on something.

[@SilconOne]

I so Agree

[@capjus]

Ah you guys go to morality

[@skyfoil]

@@capjus The only logical position an atheist can take on morality, based on the principles of their world view, is that morality is subjective. Even though any honest atheist will agree that they have an impulsive moral view on different topics, they cannot admit that their moral view is something deeper but rather is just something they acquired through evolution or from socialisation or whatever place they claim their morals come from. It's very easy to construct a moral dilemma that an atheist cannot navigate around without first admitting that morality is subjective.

[@knightspygaming1287]

How would he corner hik on morality?

[@joshendley]

When I studied Christian philosophy and seminary this past summer, I read about the humorous remarks between philosophers and scientists… I wasn’t sure how true that was until I saw this conversation

[@christophekeating21]

27:03 Dawkins says he meant "virtually nothing" (by calling himself a cultural Christian) because he takes Christian morals so much for granted that he thinks the statement is of virtually no significance. He's so incredibly naive when it comes to morality it's breathtaking.

[@themos3s]

I wouldn’t say naive, just not convinced. He’s probably got a more in depth understanding of how pathological a religious doctrine can become. It’s all emerged from Christianity and other ancient doctrines

[@RavusNox-z5i]

For someone religious to speak about morality and naiveté compared to a man who bases his action on pure reason, I find this to be very ironic and disingenuous. Christians throughout history have literally burned people alive because of heresy or being suspected witches. Their morality is based on sheer ignorance.

[@christophekeating21]

@@themos3s I have seen no evidence that Richard Dawkins has in depth understanding of the history of moral thought.

[@floralkami2860]

Alot of the scientific community has absolutely no idea of where their morals lye. Alot of them also tend to be liberal or left leaning, which is generally more morally relative, instead of universal.

[@Detson404]

Or Christians want to lay claim to all morality because they have a children’s story about a magic man who gave people rules. It’s a child’s morality.

[@HowToThink-h7e]

Think of it like this: does the story of Hitler and the Holocaust have “mythology” and “symbolic value”. Yes it does. Did it really happen? Yes it did. The two together make it “truer than true” in the sense that the symbolism of it can ACTUALLY affect reality significantly.

[@Astropeleki]

So if it affects material reality it's real? Well, that's exactly what myth that we don't for a fact materially happened does. Truer than true because it seems to affects us to such a deep level, we don't even understand why or how it does affect us.

[@HowToThink-h7e]

@@Astropeleki​​⁠For a sign, absolutely. There isn’t much in our perception detection which isn’t set for material detection (like our 5 senses). Something immaterial affecting the material in a way we don’t see the material being affected is evidence of the immaterial. No, emotionally, morally, aesthetically etc…those things are immaterial which are also impacted that we have a sense of. But, “The Green Mile” had a great emotional and mythical affect on me. Does that make it just as impactful as The Bible or the holocaust? Obviously not. It is ACTUALLY fictional where the other 2 examples are not.

[@Mr_Extra_Regular]

@@HowToThink-h7e you have zero'd in on the problem with avoiding the Factual nature of a story. If it's factual or really happened then it tends to hold more weight than other stories, because all stories seem to have a moral message or lesson for the reader, of varying profoundness depending on the imagination of the reader. If the Biblical stories are not hysterically true, then The Bible is just as profound as The Little Mermaid... a Christian would raise an eyebrow at an Ariel Cosplayer though... while also being offended by any eyebrows raised at them...

[@HowToThink-h7e]

@@Mr_Extra_RegularThank you! This seems very simple and obvious to me, and as though it should be self-evident to everyone (especially Jordan Peterson) but, here we are?

[@christophekeating21]

They may both be frustrating, but not equally. I far prefer Jordan Peterson to Richard Dawkins.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Agreed

[@swerremdjee2769]

I thought Dawkins was more honest

[@RavusNox-z5i]

Jordan Peterson is a drug addled psychologist who invented an entire belief system to treat his neurosis. He's full of anger and frustration at his existence. And he deforms Christianity in a heretical way.

[@danie-v2o]

@@SpeakLifeMediahaha you prefer the charlatan and grifter who preaches heresy 😂 🎉 great!! His is basically saying you are wrong. And also, if you and everyone else can say what Peterson says with simple language. Why is it always ONLY Peterson who needs to talk about this in the most abstract way possible! Haha or maybe you’re going to take up his scam 😂🎉

[@ivantsachev2520]

@@danie-v2o interesting whine.

[@translatorlater5177]

Alex was indeed the corpus callosum.

[@samboss2091]

The crowd missed the joke sadly

[@Quancept]

I used to be a fan of Peterson, but now I simply can't stand his art of intentional ambiguity. After all these debates and conversation of him with others, I still can't understand his pov.

[@xandercorp6175]

How could become a fan of someone whose basic POV you didn't understand?

[@iks9120]

Quancept..I agree 100% . I respected JP a lot and still think that he is wise, but with time he became too undefined, saying nothing with countless number of words, lost in his own mind.

[@Quancept]

@@xandercorp6175 because I can perfectly understand his lectures and talks on psychology and other related stuff and he is fantastic at it. But somehow when it comes to religion he simply uses highly abstract vocabulary. The problem with this approach is there are many tangents for interpretation and it's solely on the listener to interpret it. Of course the listeners bias naturally kicks in when decoding the stuff they hear. There is simply no productive outcome with these kinds of conversations except making the already convinced Christians happy.

[@zurewmurew7485]

@@xandercorp6175 Wait do you disagree , that Peterson intentionally muddied the waters to dodge certain questions? A clear fact based and scientific context was given to the question and he still tried to dodge the question appealing to the methaphorical substrate (as he say it). Saying "thats a stupid question" or "inappropriate question" isn't an answer to the question at hand, its just dishonest and just dodging the question.

[@buglepong]

he's trying to make real sense of a story that he isnt sure actually happened. so its just cognitive dissonance for him

[@christophekeating21]

In the case of Cain and Abel I think trying to prove or disprove them historically outside of the biblical account is futile. I want to know how Richard Dawkins can be so sure that they didn't exist when he agrees conflict between brothers is everywhere. Does he seriously think there was no first time? Or is he fixated on their names?

[@mannythegrandfather2291]

Exactly. It''s such a weird thing to fixate on

[@RCGWho]

Liberal theologians take the Bible mostly as nice fables and stories. Conservatives take the Bible mostly literally. That's the disconnect. Jordan is under the influence of liberal Christians and Jung.

[@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegeten]

You do realize that in order for you to think Cain and Abel was the "first time" that you would have to believe in the bible first. Because otherwise it seems pretty clear that the "first time" someone killed his brother was much longer ago. But the reason he doesn't believe it is because it was written in a book filled with impossible and made up stories, so why trust this story?

[@Mark.Allen1111]

Deleted

[@christophekeating21]

@@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegeten unless you're fixated on the names, or on dates you misguidedly add up from genealogies, not really. It would be referring to whatever the first time was. That's not really something that would leave a trace in the archaeological record, but obviously happened.

[@johndeighan2495]

What I saw in this debate was a man who insisted on giving complicated answers to simple questions and a man who insisted on giving simplified answers to complicated questions. The result? There was no meeting of minds.

[@ShortFuseFighting]

Those were not complicated questions. You can't pull a narrative out of thin air, arbitrarily dictate the parameters to your hearts content and then make claims regarding it's complexity. When you make up nonsense OF COURSE it can be as complex as you make it. But that does not give it validity. For it to be a "meeting of the minds" both parties would require to have one. This was fact vs fiction. And since fiction can play by its own rules, facts have no recourse. You can't fight an imaginary opponent

[@johndeighan2495]

@@ShortFuseFighting Part of the point Jordan is making is that fiction doesn't "play by its own rules". The brutal fact is that Dawkins doesn't know the literature in the field JP works in. He's totally ignorant of it. How are you supposed to converse with someone who knows literally nothing about the subject matter? At least JP has a certain level of familiarity with evolutionary biology. Enough to engage in an intelligent general conversation about it.

[@ShortFuseFighting]

@@johndeighan2495 ​ fiction plays by NO rules! thats why theres no point debating it (much less devoting your life to it). being "ignorant" of the bible is like being ignorant of the lore of the star wars universe. its not the scathing insult you think it is. you wanna flex on me bout your vast knowledge of the degoba system in klingon? or some other stuff i know (nor am i required to) know anything about? be my guest! but after youre done, you still need to answer this simple question : "do you believe darth vader really exists?". do you know why this conversation never moved forward? because dawkins needed to ascertain that they were living in the same reality FIRST! until we all agree on basic FACTS we cant move forward (nor should we). its the same reason journalists press conservatives on whether or not biden is the legitimate president of the united states. until that question is answered with a resounding, unequivocal, unambiguous YES, we can not move on. in a court of law they ask the defendant yes or no questions. they dont let them influence the jury by controlling the narrative in their favor. this isnt how this works. we agree or disagree on basic, simple facts FIRST and then we discuss them. you dont get to dodge basic questions like this. its way too convenient

[@johndeighan2495]

@@ShortFuseFighting What a load of pompous blah. All it tells me is that you never ask yourself penetrating questions about your own worldview.

[@ShortFuseFighting]

@johndeighan2495 i suggest you learn what words mean before you use them, nitwit. Reality and facts are "pompous" now? But blabbing on about some abstract nonsense for 2 hours isn't? Yeah, we are done here....

[@MontgomeryMonsters]

The whole basis of Christianity is that Christ conquered death, you either accept that or you don’t. To try and interpret it as JP is trying to do is futile.

[@charlesmclaughlin3578]

And sky buddies kid died and hasn’t come back

[@zilchnilton]

but what do you mean by Christ, conquered, & death?...Jordan Peterson

[@justinhartnell6779]

What does that mean? Without the sarcasm.​@@charlesmclaughlin3578

[@justinhartnell6779]

Amen.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

​@@zilchnilton I'm not sure why any thinking person would give heed to the imperfect opinions of some ignorant psychology professor. There are a handful of EXTREMELY wise sages currently on this planet who can logically and completely answer practically any question that an intelligent soul is likely to ask regarding morals and ethics. The fact that Jordan supports men buggering each other (by which I mean, that he supports homosexuality and other criminal activities, such as the unnecessary consumption of poor innocent animals) is MORE than sufficient proof that he is not as religious as he claims, and that any decent, holy person ought to shun his inane teachings and flee into the loving arms of a teacher of Truth. Furthermore, in a recent interview on Benjamin Shapiro's KZbin channel, he admitted that his wife figuratively (and I'm sure also LITERALLY) wears the pants in his household. 👖 I would be more than pleased to provide you with links to the KZbin channels of a few enlightened beings who will quickly set you on the path to perfection, as opposed to the DELUDED moral subjectivism professed by "Doctor" Peterson (pun not intended). Please find below a couple of such ENLIGHTENED masters to which I referred above: Professor Alan Watts (now deceased, so he doesn't have his own KZbin channel - just search for his videos on numerous extant channels) Swami Sarvapriyananda ( kzbin.info or search for "Vivekananda Samiti") Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda ( www.youtube.com/@TheWorldTeacher )

[@maxtroy]

I was an atheist, I started going to church as the result of discovering Peterson years ago. Alex O’Connor reminds me soooo much of the best Christians I’ve met in the church. I mean that as high praise 😊

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

I know exactly what you mean

[@AcidGubba]

Is it important to you personally that your beliefs are true?

[@Lulubelle.III.]

If only CCTV existed while God was faffing about.

[@PilgrimMission]

I think Glen should be the moderator , he explains both of them better than they do themselves.

[@danielmcdonagh2889]

Yes! Glen needs to be everywhere right now. People would benefit greatly from his Christ-centered analysis.

[@gungaloscrungalo8925]

I personally didn't find Richard very frustrating at all, honestly. All my mental exhaustion came from Jordan. Richard's extreme literalism and straight forwardness just felt to me like he was trying to keep the conversation grounded. I'm tired of people letting Jordan run off with the conversation into long lectures about his own subjective psychological interpretation of mythology, as if the meaning he takes from it is the one true way to interpret the text, and well because he finds it meaningful, it's true. To appropriate a Richard quote, people enable his drunkenness on symbols. I mean when somebody goes on a 10 minute long lecture about their interpretation of what a dragon means to society, of how the metaphorical value of dragons in stories basically makes them real, and unironically challenges you with, "If predators are real, how are dragons any less real?" How else are you meant to respond but with a polite way to word, "Obviously dragons aren't f******g real. Can we just stick to disscussing some kind of tangible reality here?"

[@CymaticsRecorded]

Where do you think dragons came from 🤔

[@gungaloscrungalo8925]

@@CymaticsRecorded What do you mean where they did come from? Myths. They aren't real

[@CymaticsRecorded]

@@gungaloscrungalo8925 Well dragons exist across multiple cultures and have been used in stories countless times. Whilst not existing physically they still do exist. What do you think their origins are. Do you buy into the idea of them being the ultimate combination of predators in our minds 🤔

[@CymaticsRecorded]

@@gungaloscrungalo8925 He definitely messed up by comparing a dragon to a lion. But if you think about the reality of animals instincts that is what Peterson is on about when it comes to the reality of the dragon. He deffo needs to stop reading bibles and read some more biology books tho.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

​@@gungaloscrungalo8925 I'm not sure why any thinking person would give heed to the imperfect opinions of some ignorant psychology professor. There are a handful of EXTREMELY wise sages currently on this planet who can logically and completely answer practically any question that an intelligent soul is likely to ask regarding morals and ethics. The fact that Jordan supports men buggering each other (by which I mean, that he supports homosexuality and other criminal activities, such as the unnecessary consumption of poor innocent animals) is MORE than sufficient proof that he is not as religious as he claims, and that any decent, holy person ought to shun his inane teachings and flee into the loving arms of a teacher of Truth. Furthermore, in a recent interview on Benjamin Shapiro's KZbin channel, he admitted that his wife figuratively (and I'm sure also LITERALLY) wears the pants in his household. 👖 I would be more than pleased to provide you with links to the KZbin channels of a few enlightened beings who will quickly set you on the path to perfection, as opposed to the DELUDED moral subjectivism professed by "Doctor" Peterson (pun not intended). Please find below a couple of such ENLIGHTENED masters to which I referred above: Professor Alan Watts (now deceased, so he doesn't have his own KZbin channel - just search for his videos on numerous extant channels) Swami Sarvapriyananda ( kzbin.info or search for "Vivekananda Samiti") Jagadguru Svāmī Vegānanda ( www.youtube.com/@TheWorldTeacher )

[@sausie007]

I love this channel!!! Thank you for making these conversations plain.

[@Steelblaidd]

As frustrating as people can find Peterson's apparent non answers I very much appreciate it. I see him reacting to the fact that for many of the most important questions we have worn the language to the point that we don't recognize the 2000 years of assumptions we have packed into them. We must un pack the valise as Tom Wright would say. Jordan is hyper aware that if he just gives a yes or no answer to some questions the questioner will assume the answers to a whole bunch of unstated questions that Jordan didn't mean to answer. This is why Alex's video camera question got a better answer. Alex had bounded the question enough that there were fewer avenues for misunderstanding. As a believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I often find in discussions with other Christians (especially evangelical Protestants) that we aren't using the words the same way at all and therefore the questions and answers don't make sense to each other.

[@d-darkness-within]

YESSSSS. People just assume they have a complete and inherent understanding of the language they are using and that problem becomes even worse when the other person believes the same thing yet has a completely different definition in their mind. It's mind boggling to me how these supposed "intelectuals" can go on and on in cyclical arguments without stopping to definine the language they are using. Even just a simple search of the etymology on google would do them (and the audience) wonders.

[@zurewmurew7485]

@Steelblaidd He dodged those questions because he doesn't want to signal to guys like you and to other Christians ,that he doesn't believe that certain Biblical things literally happened, he just recognize the symbolical importance of the stories, but he doesn't consider most of them being empirical facts. The questions given to him had a very clear context to them. It was a scientific and empirical context, not a metaphorical context. After the context was clarified even further, he still didn't answer the question , he just said "thats a stupid question". But, thats just simply a dodge.

[@d-darkness-within]

@@zurewmurew7485 What?

[@zurewmurew7485]

@@d-darkness-within I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to the guy (Steelblaidd). My bad, that I didn't tag him.

[@Steelblaidd]

@@zurewmurew7485 And if he doesn't believe they are "literally true" the way the average fundamentalist inerantists do I don't particularly care either. The way he approaches scripture is one I find very enlightening. And I think he lives it better than a great many more "orthodox" Christians do

[@martindavies1699]

Such a great review (as always Glen). Great stuff :)

[@ultamatefailure]

I really like the Theistic breakdown of this debate. Coming at this with an Atheistic view watching Peterson dance around was so incredibly frustrating but as the debate dragged on some ground was given but in points that were not especially relevant. Dawkins is definitely stuck in his own way of thinking and struggles to understand what his opponent is thinking but i feel at the end they both came to a sort of an understanding of how people think. I feel like this discussion helped bridge the gap slightly between Theism and Atheism. Really loved the video. Great channel. Keep it up :)

[@humanperson8418]

Not a Christian, but I do enjoy discussions on philosophy & religion. While I don't necessarily agree with you (KZbin comment section probably isn't the right space for this debate), I do appreciate hearing your world view as so different to my own, yet in other ways so similar.

[@thetheatreguy9853]

Correct, the story of Adam and Eve did indeed end quite fruitfully.

[@christophekeating21]

Lol 😂

[@AjayKumar-uk4sp]

JP will fail lie detector test and RD will pass. That is the point

[@bike4aday]

Wonderful analysis. Thank you!

[@danielmcdonagh2889]

Thanks Glen. This channel and your podcast are a place of refuge in the madness. God bless you!

[@ValidatingUsername]

Just a reminder, the inner sanctums of organizations throughout history have all employed layers of secrecy and/or double speak to protect the most sacred roles and practices.

[@nichobee]

Peterson can't answer basic queations. The factuality of the resurrection has nothing to do with abtract conceptualisations of what truth means. If somebody asked you if the Titanic really sank, you wouldn't say, "ohh, well I guess it just depends on what you think truth is!"...because that wouldn't make any sense. And neither does Peterson make sense. Peterson doesn't understand that the whole basis of religious faith is that you believe something to be true without proof. That's why it's called faith. What he's talking about is how humans store values and meaning from the world.

[@markmooroolbark252]

Peterson is painful and Dawkins blinkered and bigoted.

[@charlesmclaughlin3578]

@@markmooroolbark252 When I hear his voice I have brain cells that want to leap to their death

[@LittleJohnnyBrown]

How?

[@CH-gm1pp]

They're not frustrating at all. All you have to do is not click on them and act like they don't exist.

[@SquekretGenius420]

Alex should use more precise wording next time. Instead of asking, “Did a man walk out of the tomb?” he should ask, “Did Jesus, the Son of God, Creator of the universe, walk bodily out of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea three days after being crucified?” Either Jesus came back to life and walked out of the tomb, or He did not. After watching Dawkins and Peterson, I think Peterson is likely insincere. He seems unwilling to risk being taken less seriously by his peers, so he places Christ in the background with a kind of cunning behaviour. This way, he tries to retain both his newly found religious fanbase and his more intellectual followers at the same time.

[@TeamDiezinelli]

Fair enough it could be as you say. I guess he’s intellect can’t figure it out and he’s honestly trying to find an answer that suits his brain and his heart.

[@dugonman8360]

Dawkins can say he doesn't believe in myth but he does, he believes in transhumanism and human ontological and moral innocence and, frankly, that a much much much more silly and dangerous myth than a virgin gave birth to God. New atheism, as well as the enlightenment which it is the child of, is rooted in a twofold belief of hedonism and transhumanism. Without Christianity, which to be honest is what they are honestly talking about, we can live your lives however we want and that without Christianity influencing society we can finally reach the end-of-history utopia we dreamed of in Star Trek. Atheism has never debunked any actual statements on Christianity, the most they've done is tally up a heap of criticism on Judaism, but people flock to it for the simple reasons that they think they're finally free from the oppression of the church to do whatever they want, which just means hedonism. You can't make a bridge with a group who thinks you're in their way of their orgasm with their robot or alien waifu. They will fight you tooth and nail and hair and fist before giving that up.

[@dogsandyoga1743]

How would atheism "debunk" anything?

[@dugonman8360]

@@dogsandyoga1743 to debunk Christianity, you can easily debunk the crucifixion and resurrection. Without either, Christianity is false. This is why scholars in the resurrection are 60% atheistic because they are all trying to be the first to debunk this. If there was even a shred of evidence to prove it otherwise, they would have plastered it everywhere they could as atheist KZbinrs would celebrate by lathering themselves with butter and allowing their significant others to gorge on it. They haven't, they can't. The most you'll find is them saying 'well we can't prove the resurrection did or didn't happen' as well as Bart Erhman saying Jesus was a doomsday prophet, though those prophecies he obsessively focuses on is about the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. Like I said, the most I end up getting is word salads, circular reasoning, shaming tactics and a ton of criticism on Jews and their faith.

[@danatowne5498]

I had to look up "waifu". In my opinion, it's all just being spiritually parasitic. Whether they are the parasite or have the parasite I do not know.

[@dugonman8360]

@@dogsandyoga1743 they could debunk the crucification and resurrection. Without those two points, Christianity crumbles. It's the reason why over 60% of resurrection scholars are atheists. They want to debunk it with all their fiber and be the first to do it. However the most we end up getting from them is mumbles of "well, we can't prove Jesus did or didn't resurrect so he didn't" as well as Bart Erhman contorting scripture like a Olympic level contortionist that Jesus was a doomsday Prophet, even though he wasn't talking about the end of days but the fall of Jerusalem and the temple.

[@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegeten]

It seems you deeply misunderstand atheism, it's simply the absence of a belief in god. A lot of atheists have completely different views on morality and whether it's objective or subjective, this is because other than not believing in a god they have no other shared beliefs or any type of doctrine. And it's really hard to "debunk" christianity when there literally isn't any evidence to debunk, just logically flawed arguments and a book which claims a lot without any actual evidence to back it. If you want to know what it's like I'd like you to debunk the invisible man that doesn't have an observable influence as you can't see, feel, touch, smell or hear him, but he did talk to a friend of mine once and made him write a book in which he gives evidence by explaining that he did actually talk to the invisible man.

[@cosmolosys]

When I saw this video with Alex, the first thing I thought of was taking a time to doing relaxation exercises together, and really have everyone in the room feel that inner sense of peace and tranquility and remain in that state through the conversation. And going back to the exercises when one slips away from that state.

[@tgrogan6049]

The concept of supervenience explains higher order concepts like "love". If the physical substratum did not exist there would be no love.

[@BB.halo_heir]

A kite without a string is no longer a kite.

[@leanderzegwaard3181]

I have become a symbolist christian, in large, because of Peterson's explanations of Christianity. He made me think a lot about the definition of God. That's where it all starts. Once you understand the definition of God, you can get real wisdom from the stories. But Dawkins and Peterson have fundamentally different definitions of God, that's why they tend to talk past each other. The word God is probably the deepest word that we have. I think the real, actual definition of God is: the (spirit of the) Highest Good. (There are, in the different biblical stories, multiple different characterizations of God, but all these ‘sub-definitions’ fall under the overarching definition: the (spirit of the) Highest Good.) Now, here's the thing: (I think that) God isn’t a conscious being that literally exists; He isn’t some literal man watching us from another dimension. (I’m not a fundamentalist! I’m a symbolist.) I think Peterson totally agrees with this. I would be happy if he said this to Dawkins, that he doesn’t see God as some conscious being that literally exists in some other dimension. (You could still believe symbolically in a higher Being, that’s what makes this so difficult, because the symbolic reality is still very real.) If Jordan would say this I think there is a chance that Dawkins would actually agree with him on religion; they would at least get something real out of the conversation.

[@buglepong]

if god is not literal, what makes you suppose anything you think is true?

[@leanderzegwaard3181]

​@@buglepongWhy would God have to be literal door my phylosopy to work?

[@VaughanMcCue]

If JbP was that honest, he would lose potential income from the sizeable and gullible religious sector. Like W. L. (low-bar) Bill Craig, genuine believers have zero standards for what they will accept as evidence for their mythology.

[@leanderzegwaard3181]

@@VaughanMcCue Petersonian Christianity is one of the only ways forward. He has to be careful not to scare christians away.

[@buglepong]

@@leanderzegwaard3181 because then neither you nor anyone else should believe you

[@andrewbrown3818]

C S Lewis found that Jesus Christ bridged the apparent gap between 'facts' and myth. The Spirit of God alone can open our eyes. That should be our prayer for both these men made in the image of God.

[@SquekretGenius420]

Honestly I hope God is real it's just extremely difficult to believe after seeing Snakes like Peterson everywhere.

[@LittleJohnnyBrown]

Yeah let's pretend that makes sense

[@galaxyn3214]

Dawkins and Peterson arguing with each other sounded similar to the dialogues of the ghosts from *The Great Divorce* by C. S. Lewis.

[@christopherkuhl1537]

Myth is needed to better process human emotions through symbols and archetypes. The scientific method is valuable for making sound logical decisions in everyday life. So you do need to work both halves. One is concerned with the mind or body. The other with the heart and spirit. This completeness makes a human being whole in essence.

[@buglepong]

?? everyday life isnt scientific at all

[@TeamDiezinelli]

I was thinking the same as the other comment here under. I don’t believe that we use ‘mostly’ facts in everyday life. I’ve read that most of the day time we’re in auto-mode, pretty much ‘unconscious’ in most decisions. (Two examples: Driving to work and arriving there without remembering any details of the ride. Buying meds at the pharmacy trusting not really knowing if it’s working) I can’t recall who said it though. 😅 I agree with you, that we must use intuition, imagination, or our right side of the brain, as also the logic, rational and using facts and data where appropiate. The decernment of the two is the difficulty.

[@Mr_Extra_Regular]

@@TeamDiezinelli I think the unconscious auto-mode state runs on a factual level, in that it follows proven, routines with predetermined reliable outcomes, so reliable that we don't even have to consciously navigate them... we are snapped out of it when faced with something that wasn't supposed to be part of the process... We tend to use our imaginative states when dealing with the unknown, unproven, unseen... like plotting a new route, speculating possible outcomes, which we have yet to deem viable. Once we do, we blindly follow the method, based on the outcome... We do need both, though, I agree...

[@t5kcannon1]

It is a very interesting discussion. Both men made good, valuable points. On a side note, it seems to me that Jordan Peterson suffers from high blood pressure.

[@d-darkness-within]

I forgot about Jordan saying that Jesus probably did rise from the grave (literally)...that makes 0 sense coming from him because it's no longer symbolic or metaphorical, what the actual F.

[@Baes_Theorem]

There is truth to this, but it's not obvious where value turns from objective to subjective. There are many values that we share, down to our bones. This speaks to something important and valuable there.

[@d-darkness-within]

@@Baes_Theorem I don't think I quite understood what you mean...

[@AcidGubba]

@@Baes_Theorem That's nonsense; if it were true, it would be science. Belief in a god has as much evidence as belief in a flat earth. Some people have even seen Bigfoot.

[@rossbrown1273]

16:13 I think a pertinent question here would have been “so if I had proof that Cain existed, you would care about the story but if I didn’t, you don’t care about the story? Why?”

[@MrMartian]

"string without a kite" 😂

[@timelessone23]

You have to be able to say, yes, this is a fact IN THE STORY and this is a fact IN THE REAL WORLD.

[@stevenvegh7964]

Frustrating? That conversation was epic.

[@fadeitluie9356]

25:00 Obviously the incarnation matters that's not what peterson was saying

[@TheGiantMidget]

the idea that you just don't understand enough is the oldest trick in the book that spiritual gurus have used to keep people on the hook. They espouse vague mystical ideas with intentionally complicated language to confuse people and when people are starting to doubt, they tell you to try harder to understand. a lot eastern stuff is like this with the idea of enlightenment. If you haven't attained enlightenment yet it's because you're not trying hard enough but they're just selling you an empty promise that keeps you chasing and chasing while they line their pockets and create a following

[@VaughanMcCue]

I lost my enlightenment when I forgot to pay the power bill.

[@the11382]

They aren't all trying to confuse you(but yes there are bad apples), you may not have a reference point or language to understand them. Eastern mysticism is much more like Meister Eckhart, who you may need as a translator. Understanding does not mean agreement here.

[@jochananberohart3578]

To reclaim that this is always be "the oldest trick" became a trick too.

[@HowToThink-h7e]

I’m a very left brained person who accepts the value of what JP is saying and also believes “yes” to the questions Dawkins is asking.

[@leftenanalim]

It’s not about myth. It’s about the power of abstract concept and how it affect the psychology of human minds. That’s what Dr Peterson was trying to emphasise. Dawkins finds great difficulty seeing that because he really cannot accept any value coming from religions. This seems somewhat clear on where his stance is. He has more hatred towards religion than his preference over fact. “Fact” is just a shield of distraction to hide that hatred

[@tijgertjekonijnwordopgegeten]

Yeah but how about Peterson explaining it this way instead of pretending that something is "real" just because a similar thing happens to other people.

[@VaughanMcCue]

If you read any of DikkiDawk's books, you would recognise how wrong you are. He does not hate religion; it is the superior attitude of the cheer squad, so full of conceit that they make everyone around them sick.

[@louisehaley5105]

“Richard Dawkins VS Jordan Peterson” , now that’s an Epic Rap Battle in the making ! With Epic Lloyd as RD and Nice Peter as JP

[@CarlFredrik-uo1cu]

Jordan Peterson is a master at using the most words possible to say little/nothing at all.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

I take it you are not familiar with politicians if you actually believe that.

[@CarlFredrik-uo1cu]

@@BlacksmithTWD Some of them are masters at that as well. That doesn't exempt Jordan Peterson.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

@@CarlFredrik-uo1cu Compared to the politicians I've heard Jordan is in the amateur league. How old are you?

[@davepubliday6410]

It’s not left/right brain, it’s the difference between logical thinking and magical thinking.

[@Mark.Allen1111]

Look into dr. Jill bolte’s ted talk

[@TanSpeakersCorner]

Fact nor myth are the truth. Fact of the matter is myth can be used to identify the truth in this cosmic universe which is filled with mystery that has yet to be uncovered. 1 is fact, 4 is fact. 1+1+1+1=4 is fact but you won’t know what to do with it if there are no myth like you need 4 musketeers. You: Ha! Gotcha, it is 3 musketeers. Me: What did I say? Technicality is not the truth.

[@JaguarBST]

“Idgaf about your meta commentary on myths” Dr. Richard Dawkins probably.

[@velsen232459]

Dawkins communicates and Peterson preaches, with a raised voice. Peterson practices his monologues in front of the mirror, because he wants to see himself :)

[@sergiosatelite467]

As as full-blooded “non-reductive” naturalist I must say this is the most integrated and insightful analysis of the “meaning” crisis I’ve seen from Christians in a long time - and “consume” lots of Christian “content.” Ultimately I am unmoved by it as I think supernaturalism cannot be integrated into science while I think science can be shown to be at bottom non-reductive. But my respects for showing very clearly that the problem is one of integrating facts and values. I think this ACTUALLY moved the conversation forward. My respects!

[@HearGodsWord]

The winner here was Alex!

[@TheAirSchool]

There are different levels of reality. Facts and Myths do not operate on the same level.

[@jrk1666]

If Peterson is drunk on symbols then Dawkins wants to hear a bark from the word "dog"

[@KL9702.]

John Lennox is the in-between. He bridges the gap between science and God quite beautifully.

[@truincanada]

Concur absolutely. Brilliant mind.

[@MVRDERRXSOCIETYY16]

No he doesn't

[@iankclark]

Whoever did that mashup of RD vs JP at the end is a genius. Where did that come from?

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

We did! kzbin.info/www/bejne/rajVkIhpgKykb6Msi=Pw8DycIeHAYgLTq1

[@iankclark]

@@SpeakLifeMedia spot on! 😂

[@calebcothron3556]

I was feeling exactly this watching the discussion. I was talking to a friend about it today, and I gave the suggestion that I think Peterson is a materialist who doesn't realize he's a materialist. My friend made the point that if "it's all just psychological brain activity then it's all just fun and games to allegorize the human meta experience" which I think is where JP sits even if he doesn't realize it or isn't willing to admit it himself

[@ÍtaloResiå]

But what do you mean by materialist? What does meaning mean? - Peterson, Jordan... probably.

[@danatowne5498]

At least he's not an insufferable, incomprehensible snob like Dawkins. What I feel is that Jesus is in fact the Way, the Truth and the Life. You can't grow without life and to whatever extent (however imperfectly) Peterson is trying to point to growing something as opposed to tearing it down or killing it he is on the right track in recognizing that Western Civilization didn't spring full grown out of Zeus' head like Athena. These days that seems to be an accomplishment. imo :)

[@Blocker___]

He’s not a materialist at all. The reason he’s mischaracterized is because no one is familiar with Jungian literature; which is diverged away from materialism. What a completely stupid comment Caleb.

[@martinlag1]

This discussion is a theist supposing that Peterson, while insufferable is closer to the truth, and Dawkins, while insufferable is further away, being a materialist. Now we all already believe in the material world. We all accept science. Metaphysics also exist, but obviously not as material entities. The question is does the world of myth (God, miracles, afterlife) actually also exist? Dawkins says no. He never denies values, like ethics and love. I'm not sure what he lacks, except faith in myth. I understand that Christians think Jesus actually resurrected from the dead and they will all get eternal life if only they figure out and proclaim this scientifically unlikely story. I think values are important in society and facts are important in the lab. So does Dawkins. My take home message from this video is the two theists proclaiming a list of concepts with lots of hand gestures and making very little sense.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

Dawkins is on record as saying “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” What he “observes” is very clearly limited, in scope and in method. The universe that is really there includes morals, maths, minds, and much more - which contradicts his assumed naturalism.

[@calmingwavesjulian]

@@SpeakLifeMedia No, no, no. The Dawkins quote you included has the phrase *AT BOTTOM*. That means Dawkins is aware and believes in design, purpose, evil and good. It's the universe that doesn't care. No contradiction of naturalism. Even for a Christian "at bottom", God not only created an animal world that feels pain and MUST rip themselves apart but also FOR no reason. Bonus: this God will also infinitely torment some jews AFTER they died in the horrifically in the ho1ocau2t. Because they didn't believe. Absolutely ridiculous.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

I recognise that there are layers of human culture and psychology on top of Dawkins’ fundamentals. But a materialist universe “at bottom” is unfeeling and amoral. You can construct a moral system on top of that but that system will have a very different character - subjective, arbitrary and pragmatic. The triune God is love and therefore a love ethic is objective, non-arbitrary and to be pursued as an end in itself. These are very different positions.

[@calmingwavesjulian]

​@@SpeakLifeMedia Okay, thanks for clarifying, just being a watchdog for prejudicial framing of popular atheist humanist thinking. Also, I think a God who drops some jews after they experienced the ho1ocau2t, into an eternal suffering worse than the ho1ocau2t because they don't believe is "unfeeling and amoral", but this does stop you from sleeping at night, *why*? Finally, since God did not make himself, His morals are subjective=God is an individual with thoughts/ arbitrary=God did not create His nature if HE always existed, so God can't really choose or ground His morals (why stone gays in ancient Israel but stop in Jesus' day? It's just God's whim--too bad for those gay men in ancient Israel). And, if all the suffering, the God you believe in, put humans under is for a REASON, then it is PRAGMATIC, if it is not pragmatic it's for no reason. Christian theism (really all theism) is human philosophy reacting to an uncaring world and imagining someone who cares, sadly being made by humans, you can see it doesn't solve any of the problems. You trade an "unfeeling and amoral" universe for a God that seems "unfeeling and amoral" especially when comes to inaction on suffering but will fix everything in an unidentifiable future. That sounds like a scam.

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

I believe the Judge of the world is a persecuted Jew, I don’t know who goes where in judgement but I trust him. And, as I say, the triune God is love. God is goodness - what is at bottom is a life of liberty, equality and fraternity. You want to call me out for any misrepresentations or misunderstandings of Dawkins. Fair enough. But apply that same standard to yourself. Make sure you’re responding to actual Christian theology, not the grotesque caricatures you’re trading in.

[@funkyskypilot]

Strikes me that Dawkins thinks he’s living by facts now and that the further you go back in history the more things become fictional. Peterson, on the other hand, seems to believe that we are living fictions now but that the further we explore the fundamental meaning of our cultural myths the more we can, in fact, live.

[@daneumurian5466]

Dr. Leland Ryken, a professor of English at Wheaton college, wrote several books on how to read the Bible.Is literature. Some portions of the Bible are intended to be taken literally, others figuratively.

[@callmeal3017]

Nice vid. I agree attention (but also quality of attention) is key. Science and the teaching thereof w/o morality follows the $ and the world of value impacts the worof science, evidence for this being the state of science today including the string theory debacle, climate change "science" and the current trends in medical practice that elevate protocol over practice. Also has Dawkins ever seen the anomalies that have shown up on cameras and audio recordings? Cheers!

[@d-darkness-within]

When debates/conversation become a contrast between two personality types as a pose to a search for enlightenment/truth we get no where fast.

[@VaughanMcCue]

I saw it as a monologue with JbP interrupting DikkDawk if he made a sound.

[@TheGiantMidget]

as opposed* idiot 😂

[@jagmeetsingh1783]

JP has turned Christ and all that Christianity represents into an Ideology presented through stories that is just there to teach us a better way to understand and live life। It is sad that he had to do this approximation only to be more platable to his own mind and presentable to the 'modern intellectuals'। This degradation is pathetic

[@VZ4itSeV]

What a brilliant video

[@bonafide9931]

Thank you

[@timelessone23]

Truth is what unites the material and the abstract, the subjective and the objective, and still be able to survive and procreate and be happy.

[@LitotheLlanito]

4:54 think synoptic integration (CF Vervaeke). Jordan is trying to integrate questions like 'what do I believe' with 'what happened'. It should not be taken for granted that you know what you believe, for Jordan. The answer derives not just from what you say, but how you act think judge feels etc. So thinking about what happened, when the empirical material evidence is inconclusive, has to yield to 'what do I believe' if you are going to form a meaningful opinion.

[@golandamato4701]

Dawkins is Boring and Naive and his inability to trace back the bedrock which allowed western idea to develop is very poor taste. Thank God for the Psychologist

[@Ladiesman-js3kt]

Dawkins isn't frustrating, Peterson definitely is though.

[@jeffersonpower3356]

In Australia. indigenous peoples lived for 60000 years without Christianity? They had very strong powerful law as that came from the dreaming, the mother earth . As a white man , a intellectual and a former Christian I look to them for wisdom not a book written in a warring middle eastern culture.2000 years ago No God the father or Jesus and what did the Christians do within 200 years. It was utterly disgraceful, utterly evil and utterly cruel. Absolute arrogance ...that's another fact that intellectual Christians will avoid. Peterson needs to go out bush and sit with some old black Fellas they could teach him something really really important. and he might lose some of his arrogance and maybe you too christians?

[@ABO-Destiny]

Why unite them,there is no need to unite, there was no need,idiotic ,malicious attempts of people who were neither interested in either myth or facts or differences.

[@theFijian]

It's too late for Dawkins. If he'd met Peterson 20 years ago he might have had enough time to make the journey

[@justinhartnell6779]

Damn straight! Thank God for this guy. Seriously...

[@tyemaddog]

What is love? ...,............................................................................................. Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more

[@luisvivanco6897]

Putting Alex as moderator of Peterson and Dawkins is like putting an antireptile mammal as referee of a fight between a mongoose and a cobra. Also, putting Alex as moderator of Peterson and Dawkins is like putting a Hyena as a moderator between the debate of a Lion and a Sheep (or a Calf). Again, putting Alex as moderator of Peterson and Dawkins is like putting Julius Streicher as a judge between some Jewish hostages and a fanatic antisemite murderer belonging to the group Hamas. I seriously think the idea may have been passed through.

[@fergusfitzgerald977]

Dawkins reminds me of the Sixth former I once was ! Peterson reminds me of my then Religious ( highly sophisticated open minded folk -be aware ) teachers . I am now like neither of them - not religious not scientific. I admire Alex actually his knowledge and sophistication humility is very appealing ! The religious and the materialist are in no way interesting to me !

[@WINDOWS94198]

We need an advancement of Metaphysics in order for this two gentlemen to gave way

[@timelessone23]

Truth is what you can afford.

[@PMC-Japan]

They should do the interview again on mushrooms

[@Baes_Theorem]

JP's mushroom trip would be phenomenal, but he would not be great company. 😂 I think Dawkins would try to resist it and have a bad trip.

[@MatthewMariano-wl3qj]

Pretty sure JP is always on mushrooms.

[@ShortFuseFighting]

Dawkins wasn't frustrating. He simply refused to validate the torrent of nonsense coming out of the other guys mouth. When you have undisputable facts on your side you don't need to play along with your opponents narrative. We don't have to accept the premise of somebody's mental gymnastics. It's not our job. The earth is round, we have conclusive evidence of that. You can keep telling me it's actually flat till the cows come home 10 ways to Sunday . Won't make any difference, and I refuse to validate your arguments by discussing them

[@MM-yi9zn]

Jordan is drunk on symbols & myth indeed!

[@PeterQuentercrimsonbamboo]

sure… and Dawkins is drunk on only-physical-reality and ‘ if I can’t touch it, it doesn’t exist’

[@AcidGubba]

@@PeterQuentercrimsonbamboobs

[@ElRepositorioHDQ]

Ken Wilber, I believe that the key is the common ground of uncertainty and the exploration of consciousness but the human experience has a common denominator.

[@johnfoster7596]

Jordon Peterson is almost screaming to get his points across. And they are bordering on delusional! Alex O'Connor has a difficult job as moderator!

[@AttlasAllux]

You rightly established what is so frustrating about watching any debate between any pair of intellectuals mired in the binary duality of Human 2.0. And you are also right that the only thing that can reconcile such dogmatic oppositional dichotomies is the Christic Principle of 3: the Triune Principle that reconciles all apparent opposites, even so-called "good" and "evil." That means a critical upgrade to Human 3.0: the Triune Human Being "made in the image and likeness of God." kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZXNdaxtoMmDnZI

[@RCGWho]

Dawkins: I will concede nothing about your myths and stories Peterson: I will concede nothing about orthodox tenets of Christianity

[@chrisjames9795]

RD: When love hurts It won't work Maybe we need some time alone We need to let it breathe (huh, huh) JP: Say you want to leave 'cause this relationship failing (fact & value) Ain't nobody say that it would be smooth sailing 🤭🎼🎶

[@MorsGloriaque]

This is the best video I've seen all year

[@timelessone23]

PETERSON suggests that if you look at the top of the hierarchy, you will find something. So what is that?

[@louisehaley5105]

Perhaps Douglas Adam’s was right all along - the answer to Life, the Universe & Everything really is 42 ! Now it’s up to us to find the right question.

[@Joram647]

I agree that "coming to divinity" from the bottom up hasn't been the traditional way to go about it, but I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that it "can't be done". I'd go as far as to say not only can it be done, but it might be one of the few ways to get people of our post-Dawkins hyper left brain world out of that myopic rut and back into balance. Dawkins may be too dense and hyper literal to understand what Peterson is talking about, but many of Dawkins' disciples do understand and have found their way out of the hole with it. I agree that you can't go all the way with the bottom up Peterson method, but I see it as a necessary stepping stone for many who have lost their way thanks to Dawkins and his cohorts.