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😂

[@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! :)

[@MrMartian]

"string without a kite" 😂

[@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]

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.

[@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 :)

[@RCGWho]

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

[@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

[@Bahamut998]

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@martindavies1699]

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

[@sausie007]

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

[@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.

[@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 :)

[@fadeitluie9356]

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

[@christophekeating21]

Dawkins says virtually nothing because he takes Christian morals so much for granted that he thinks it's 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

[@Bahamut998]

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.

[@studiocorax8790]

I actually think both of them are in it for the money. Dawkins is not interested in Petersons views, and Peterson mostly puts up a show, to keep the tension which he benefits from.

[@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

[@bluj78]

Dorkins wins hands down in terms of pompous unwillingness to see where his interlocutor is coming from. Irritating af

[@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.

[@mrFizzboat]

The narrator splits everything into truth and value. Yet value is necessarily subjective, it exists only in an individual's mind.

[@dougmasters4561]

I dunno that I think Peterson truly prioritizes myth more than he does narrative.

[@thetheatreguy9853]

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

[@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

[@samueltopping7812]

Very helpful

[@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.

[@ryanhise6294]

Was Pinocchio real? Is Jesus more real than Pinocchio?

[@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.

[@swerremdjee2769]

45:00, i strongly disagree, all 3 are left brained individuals. With dawkins having the most rational way of thinking, and i thougt he was more genuine than Peterson, Alex was just the host🙂 And its not logic vs story🙂, its rational vs emotinal... Not facts vs value🙂, facts vs feelings👍 I also liked the stream, and also thought Alex was doing a good job, he impressed me a little.

[@pj9591]

They both do not understand that they are alienated from absolute reality. They discus their ego reality. Not Absolute reality.

[@rickardarvidsson4659]

We keep hearing "scientists can't explain..." from the religious. Who also can't. And: Nothing Can Come Out Of Nothing, haha. And God was before there was anything, haha. OK.

[@danie-v2o]

I can’t but agree with Alex on this, the emperor has no clothes; “Either I'm dumb or Jordan Peterson is genuinely unintelligible. I'm being serious now, are you guys just pretending that you understand Jordan Peterson? I've given him an honest chance. In the latest debate with Dawkins, I simply cannot help but cringe at his replies to even the simplest questions... **Dawkins**: "Do you believe that? That it's divine (biblical texts)?" **JP**: "I think it's reflective of some order that's so profound and implicit that there isn't a better way of describing it than divine.". Here, he's just redefining divine to mean something it doesn't, i.e. profound. Something can't be "almost" or "basically" divine. It's a binary choice, it either is or isn't divine. That's it. He does this throughout the entire debate. Then, an even worse response to an even simpler question... **Jordan Peterson**: "... I don't think it makes any difference whether it's divinely inspired or not." **Dawkins**: "You don't think it makes a difference whether its DIVINELY inspired or not?" **Jordan Peterson**: "I don't think fundamentally... look ok let me ask you this, I think that at bottom, truth is unified, and what that's gonna mean eventually is that the world of value and the world of fact coincide in some manner that we don't yet understand and I think that that union, the fact of that union, is equivalent to what's being described as divine order across millennia. There's no difference. This is a tricky business because you either believe that the world of truth is unified in the final analysis or you don't, those are the options, and if it's not unified then there's a disunity, there's a contradiction between value and fact, between different sets of values that cant be brought into unity. I don't believe that." Not trying to be a hater. I'm genuinely curious, how can you listen to this and not literally cringe at the obvious evasion and word salad? Or am I just so dumb I can't comprehend the profundity at display here?” Short version; Peterson is a charlatan, a grifter. Peterson is actually killing God by saying that it’s only a metaphor! It’s a self defining position! Btw, I think it’s pretty unfair to ask Dawkins to have better questions. When it has taken years! Literally years! For Peterson to answer this one simple question.

[@Rob-fb6rw]

JP killed god for me lol by solidifying that’s is a metaphor that imo, taps into truths around the mind and body, which are too complex to understand or navigate even at times in the modern world.

[@isaac95395]

you ever think you just are inferior to JP's intelligence?

[@ArsxnIV]

I genuinely don't get why Jordan speaks like that. Stephen Fry, Elon Musk, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer and John Lennox are all equally intelligent. At least two of them are actually smarter than Jordan, and yet all of them can speak like a normal human. The whole point of speech is to communicate information; Jordan constantly fails to do that. He literally shoots himself in the foot with his own words.

[@seshunlimited]

This is what happens when two faithless unbelievers not indwelled or lead by the Holy Spirit attempt to interpret the inerrant, infallible, Holy Oracles of GOD. While Dawkins essentially rejects it altogether, Peterson admits his lack of faith in its claims yet tries to “teach” it from a purely intellectual viewpoint, while hiding behind a wall of his own pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. He says many words, but ultimately it goes nowhere and he fails to grasp the entire point of the book. It is like watching two potato farmers try to have a deep conversation about brain surgery.

[@RCGWho]

It's like those Bible as Lit. courses at secular universities.

[@evanhuizenga8626]

Strongly disagree. I think everyone can learn a lot from watching these two men converse. This is not nonsense babble...

[@calvinbaker9861]

This video is a waste of time

[@mikenielsen8781]

Your analysis is much more interesting than the rather dreary conversation you're analyzing.

[@matthewposton3243]

Jordan's reference to 'something approximating mercy and tolerance' coming out of the barbarous past of history as a 'bloody miracle' is interesting. Ultimately it was the very 'bloody miracle' of Christ crucified that did just that

[@mokeboi3328]

A pair of athiests who have immense skill to speak for 90 minutes and yet say absoloutley nothing. O Connor's mustache has more to offer the world than these two children.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Petersons not an Atheist

[@Flying_H3llfish7]

Peterson has only recently given up his athiesm and he was being honest when he said that he doesnt know how he believes the biblical miracles. He was being honest. He shouldn't Lie and say be believes the biblical miracles when he's still struggling to accept them. He is on the right path and did fine. Not everyone just suddenly believes. For a lot of people conversion is a process that takes time. The athiestic people who listened to the podcast now have something to really think about and that'd a good thing.

[@gottabepablo]

Your contribution here suffers from the same critique you give the speakers. This conversation certainly didn’t introduce anything new, but it allowed two people a chance to try and understand one another. For discussions centered around divinity, that’s no easy feat.

[@mokeboi3328]

@@gottabepablo as glen scriver says in his commentry..they both need to do much better at dealing with the questions...

[@gottabepablo]

@@mokeboi3328 don’t we all