People were complaining on X about Peterson being wishy washy about the miracle questions, but Dawkins uses those questions as a heuristic to dismiss and ignore anyone who says “yes” - Peterson knows this and realizes there is no point to giving an answer that immediately ends the conversation.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." JP doesn't want to answer because his entire epistemological framework is clearly wrong.
Apologies for my bluntness, but the Dawkins / Peterson debate feels like grandparents yelling at Fox News. The kids have moved on. They are thirsty for living water. Let the dead bury their dead.
I feel the boredom and apathy. However, if we abandon what came before the "now," were repeating the revolutionary's mistake. We have to bring the baggage along with us.
Peterson: Mom Dawkins: Dad O'Connor: "Should I put the casserole back in the oven again for when we finally decide to sit down at table?".......'>.....
There needs to be a discussion on how Symbols and metaphors control and shape reality.. pragmatically MATH (symbols) has created all our homes, cars, tables etc.. so there is away symbols are greater to our reality bc we use them to master our world.
I hear what you're saying but my guess is the argument would then be, "math isn't symbols". I do think there should have been progress in the "Dragons or Predators" discussion, but Dawkins just seemed to dismiss this when there is clearly a correlation.
I suspect Bret Weinstein would have done a better job than O'Connor in steering clear of Dawkins' questions of factuality. JBP suggested Bret but apparently Dawkins rejected him and wanted O'Connor instead. If there's a follow-up conversation I hope for a change in moderator.
Dawkins final statement is so remarkable. I think it's reflective of the whole conversation and his willful blindness of what is actually being discussed. He says, with a smirk: "I believe in eternal things. I'm interested in things that were true before there were any humans, and will be true long after humans become extinct" Where are these "eternal things" that science discovers? Isn't the scientific method supposed to get us ever closer, with increasing degrees of numerical precision to our theories but never quite there? Until, that is, a new theory arrives that improves on the former theory, and so on and so forth, god willingly? Which physical laws were there before the dawn of time and space? Scientists refer to the Big Bang as a "singularity" event. Which biology will remain after all life become extinct? How can these scientific findings be Eternal if they are not even everlasting? In who's mind are these Facts going to be manifested in, after the heat death of the universe? Doesn't this Science, with capital S, presupposes something more fundamental if it wants to claim perpetuity? Perhaps something truly Eternal? Something not bounded by our limited theories of space and time, but something that is actually beyond it? Perhaps a mind, or intelligence, where these Ideas can reside in? Even if only "metaphorical", these notions have to be taken seriously. Maybe all this "symbolism" Dawkins complains about is the only way we can approach these eternal forms. Dawkins makes it seem as if the Science he champions is "from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear it", as in Psalm 103:17. Makes him sound almost mystical in it's circularity, as David Bentley Hart usually puts it.
There were so many times I wish I could've jumped into Jordan's place in that conversation. It was very frustrating how Richard showed almost no interest in engaging with Jordan but it did make it clear that he is simply incapable of operating at that level of abstraction. It's just the way his mind works.
I feel bad for Dawkins. He’s clearly distraught that the sinking ship of science will drown his legacy. Why can’t he see that Jordan is begging for help in caulking the hull?
I didn't see Dawkins or any other boffins flying to the moon - those heroes were test pilots and adventurers. They got there on the wings of a myth. They weren't patting themselves on the back for how clever the maths was
Haruki Murakami has this gorgeous line somewhere at the end of his Windup Bird Chronicles: not every fact is a truth, and not every truth consists of facts. It's a poetic perspective unavailable to Dawkins.
Just started the video so this might get covered but I can remember Pageau , Peterson and Bret Weinstein talking about science and religion. Or qualitative and quantitative. Pageau pointed out like Peterson did a qualitative value between fictional work. Peterson sees both and Dawkins or Bret seem blind to how even facts align hierarchically. In Genesis you have God breathing onto dust. The breath is qualitative and the dust is qualitative. Or that how I see it.
Dawkins chooses to repeat the false allegation that Isaiah was mistranslated because it suits his bias. He has no interest in sound Biblical scholarship.
Agreed, he justifies his dismissal of the text by stating that he’s “quite familiar” with it, having grown up around it. I’m quite interested in facts as well, maybe we can dig deeper into what exactly “quite familiar” looks like.
I think you're right, he doesn't know how to answer questions like "do you believe Mary was a virgin" head on, concisely and efficiently to blunt them and move on to the meat and potatoes, but I place myself in his position and find myself in a similar boat. How would you answer those questions if you were him I wonder? Which "L" would you take and which "W"?
Peterson's answer to this type of questioning from Dawkins needs to be some variation of: "Being able to label me a heretic to your faith is easy as you won't have to listen or wrestle with difficult questions. But my letting you do so is a disservice to you and to our audiences so I'm not playing the shibboleth game with you. Let's be brave and open minded and get to the real heart of the matter here together." He's too gentle with his former tribe, often conceding they're on the high ground. Needs to be as assertive against their shibboleths as he is against the wokies'.
I specially like how Dawkins challenges JBP on the nature of the Christian mystery. Because it is after all a mystery. It is a matter of faith and the courage that goes along with that, as since the time of John the Baptist, the kingdom of God is not that easy to catch not even through quantum mechanics. Asking me if I believe that Mary was a virgin is like asking me if Christ will return one day. Christianity, although it serves as a light to guide the world, at least to those in the world who are lost and want to be found by Christ, is not at our service as a tool for "predictive power". It is here for us to embrace for his salvific power. Sacrifices is indeed at the basis of all healthy communities. But in this modern world none of our sacrifices are perfect. The divine instructions is to wait for the ultimate sacrifice to redeem the humanity as a whole both in time and space. Peterson is playing according to me a more dangerous game than Dawkins. By saying that sacrifices are at the basis of community he wants to make a scientific point not a metaphysical one. He wants to gain predictive power for himself to anticipate the fall of Rome or make communities healthy or whatever. How surprise he will be when he will understand actually that there is no perfect sacrifice in this world except for one. This modern world with all his wonders is based on imperfect sacrifices and not often toward God. This is why he can't answer the question.
Mary's virginity closes the door on earthly ascension to the Throne of God that circumambulates the very reason for the Birth in the first place.......
When it comes to philosophy, never mind theology, Dawkins is a big joke. The fact that anyone takes him seriously is a sign of the intellectual poverty of our times. Alex O'Connor knows the first part and his duplicity needs to be called out.
I got to the 17 min mark before dorkins' pedantic midwittery ground my patience to an unwilling stub. Point being, thanks for watching it; interested to hear your thoughts.
I understand commenters who say Dawkins "doesn't get it" or, more likely, that he does get it but is trying to narrow the discussion to an empiricist's frame... but I think it's fair to say JBP has taken the mythic / metaphorical approach to its absolute limit.
My answer to whether Jesus was born of a virgin or resurrected is "yes". When I say "yes" I'm not saying I understand it but I am saying I believe it in the factual sense Dawkins demands. If God is who we say he is than would it not be pride to restrict what we believe to what we can understand?
Jordan is trying to convince Dawkins that God is alive, or at minimum that "spirits" are a reality, but he wants to do it in a scientific/non-religious way. I agree that this kind of esoteric exploration and understanding is needed by the scientific community. I can see that he is looking for better ways to explain these ideas to materialistic atheists. That's what this whole exercise with Dawkins is about. I think he fell short in the first hour of the conversation but in the last 30 minutes they start to make decent progress. The DW exclusive part is much better, I think he finally found a way to connect their worldviews at the end. I hope they try again soon. I think Jordan needs to find a why to explain his ideas without defaulting too quickly to how the thought derives from a Biblical story. Once he starts bringing up the Bible as an explanation it immediately derails the Dawkins types and makes them defensive. Jordan needs to explain his ideas first without using myth or symbolic references. Once there is agreement on the importance of the idea he can bring up that the idea is encoded in one of the Biblical stories. Dawkin's and those like him believe the Bible is just a collection of Bronze age myths that are very out dated and obsolete for the modern world. If Jordan can convince someone like Dawkins of the "divine ideas" he's found in these myths without mentioning the source he might make more progress towards his goal. Once Dawkins is convinced of the idea he can reveal that the idea is encoded in this or that Bible story without triggering his default anti-religion defenses.
What is embarassing to me is this discussion on christian mystery as a quest for predictive power tools. What is exactly do they want to predict here? -Do you believe in Christianity ? - Not sure but it was a sufficiently powerful tool to bring Rome to its knees. - It is more than a tool with predictive power.
No. It matters because Peterson cannot answer direct questions concerning magical claims made in The Bible. Instead, he obfuscates and misdirects. I thought Dawkins asked perfectly fair questions. One either believes Jesus walked on water, dispensed miracles, and raised the dead or one does not. This seems obvious.
The strength (diabolical strength?) of the historicity dilemma is proven by how troubled I feel after it is raised. This conversation, the Sam Harris and JBP talk from years ago, and others like it leave me feeling some cocktaiil of ennui and anxiety (perhaps there are better words for it). I feel motivated to anticipate and answer the historicity dilemma's questions. That motivation and anticipation seem to be perversions of faith, desire, and hope. It's almost as if the historicity dilemma is a game that can't be played infinitely. It's not something that would motivate Panksepp's rats to keep playing.
Also, within Christian fellowship, it's frustrating when 2 Timothy 4's 'do away with mythos' weighs-in and fellows throw their hats in the ring with Dawkins.
Yes the Historicl question is a problem. We say the virgin birth is amazing and so is the resurrection. We say we take the eye witness accounts as true. The new athiest say do you belleve them? They say they are lieing to you. The Athiests also say they are mad men who said these things. It is troubleing because you have to compare Trust, Truth and Miricales to every day life. The funny thing is Jesus said you will do what i have done and even more. Chtistianity used to teach wisdom as a virtue. Now Athiest say wisdom is Science and not a virtue. Doctors and Jesus then and now heal the sick. Jesus could heal the blind now doctors can heal some of the blind. Jesus raised the dead on the third day. Doctors can often do minutes or 30 is specale circumstances. A women can have a baby with out sex in a fertility clinic. Who much more would the Being who created us be compared to the Doctors LOL. We have everyday miricales based on wisdom and Athiests ignore them or say its science alone.
One of the thoughts that comes to mind which also relates surprisingly to the Unitarian vs Trinitarian debates is that while it may be prone to misunderstanding a historical tradition gives it followers concise language at least as a starting point. JBP is a smart guy but sometimes a DIY approach to faith conceals more than illuminates.
When we are arguing about the historical virgin birth we are actually arguing if there is a God that could make this happen, if it is a possibility then the historical question is very different
I think the historical answer is very interesting. If an earthly lineage to the Son of God cannot be established, earthly kings and tryants cannot claim it to subvert scripture to serve their ends and possibly to abolish the Word altogether.......
@@lzzrdgrrl7379 Definitely! I'd say that Dawkin's pressure on this topic isn't productive. Once the deeper questions are processed the upper layer of history becomes accessible and fruitful
My opinion is that Peterson does lean toward belief in a metaphysical reality of said miracles, but that he knows in this setting it is likely a trap and would devolve the conversation down into the literal vs literal arguments of truth, which is Dawkins’s sandbox. And by not playing that game, as clunky as it was, they were able to get to a few interesting convergences between archetypes and memes, which is the best anyone could have hoped for in the aired part of the conversation. Because in his last conversation with Alex, he did admit to a possible metaphysical reality of the resurrection
Well worth reading. The archetype theory is unfalsifiable-how might the entire range of known stories be any different if there were no archetypes? There’s no way to rule out alternative explanations for similarities in many stories: first, the stories could have been spread by cultural contact; second, there’s a limited range of possibilities in human experience for basic story patterns; third, the stories could have been selected for by appeal to our aesthetic faculty (there are plot elements, known to Aristotle, Alexandre Dumas, and Joss Whedon, which make for an appealing story). Archetypes are just a myth. Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses (p. 97). Carus Books. Kindle Edition.
It’s unclear to me why Dawkins is even there. He doesn’t appear to have anything he wants to accomplish. He asks no questions other than the embarrassing “did someone actually have intercourse with Mary…”. I get what he’s technically asking, but when I reflect on the whole event, I’m suspecting that it was a nice trip and payday.
Jordan Peterson is pleading with him to seriously consider an area of literature he (Dawkins) is ignorant of and Jordan thinks that this literature aligns almost perfectly with a lot of the ideas that Dawkins holds but in the realm of ideas - but ideas that are so powerful and fundamental that our biology adapted to them. Dawkins is just unwilling to concede that there might be any value in “truths” (read as: objective mathematical observations) of the kind that aren’t data points.
Oh gosh, this conversation was frustrating. Peterson wanted dialogue, whilst dawkins (and seemingly alex) wanted reductionist yes, no, or I don't know answers. What exactly does that achieve? Dawkins lacks so much inquisition for someone who studied a science. I get you don't like religion, but at least try to create proper dialogue! It's like a tennis match that never gets going after the ball has been served...
Alex's comment is funny but I don't necessarily agree that JBP is the right hemisphere. I think he integrates the two hemispheres very well which is part of why he's compelling. Dawkins is definitely left hemisphere though.
Dawkins insists on being interested only in "truth", yet he only accepts "facts" (as defined in the scientific field) as the only valid forms / carriers of truth. I think that's what he needs to be pressed on. Because if he says so, then his worldview falls apart. There are a lot of pre-axiomatic truth claims he accepts and uses to justify his own worildview (that are not "facts"). In said worldview he then denies any other forms of truth! It's so annyoing! It would be watch a debate with him about basic epistemological topcis, like apriori / aposteriori truths, etc. I sat down listening to the talk/debate being hopeful. Hopeful that Dawkins could make the jump, the "evolutionary adaptation", from his primitive materialistic worldviewto something more comprehensive. But alas, I was disappointed...
Sorry Paul but I think you have it the wrong way around. Sacrifice comes from the word sacred. To sacrifice means to make something sacred. Origin of sacrifice1 First recorded in 1225-75; Middle English sacrifice, sacrifis(e), from Old French sacrefise, sacrefice, from Latin sacrificium “offering made to a deity, sacrifice,” equivalent to sacri- (combining form of sacer “holy, sacred”) + -fic-, combining form of facere “to make, build, construct” + -ium noun suffix; do 1; -ium ( def )
I’m pretty sure both words come from the word, ‘sacrum’. The bone at the bottom of your spine. Some traditions also relate it to the sacral chakra in that system, but again that comes from ‘sacrum’ bone as well.
Re: your Vervaeke & Pageau conversation coming up... Vervaeke talks of 'reality' as being both confirming and surprising. The moments of affirmation and revelation both assure us of reality. Episode 48 of AftMC minute 16:28. It ties in with the modernist/fundamentalist split, sacredness, and historicity. It came to my mind and I hope it helps. Altars are places where we are both confirmed and surprised. Within and without. All in all.
Regarding virgin birth: well there are arguments that Jesus and John were brothers. (As in Luke: Mary had a vision and then directly went to the house of Zacharia who had had a vision and been struck dumb ..) And the motif of brothers is repeated: Cain and Abel, Jacob & Issau ... That is, perhaps in contrast to the visions (or however you might characterize them) of resurrection and return to heaven, one might argue that Christian belief does not essentially rest on "virgin birth" (and some sort of biological asexual reproduction)....
Increasing human knowledge of the universe. Something that Paul and other Christians see as useless and futile "wisdom of the world". Hence the Dark Ages.
@@tgrogan6049At the cost of human knowledge of humanity. Technology is transformative of the ecological, social and cultural tapestry, and technologists recklessly plow forward without awareness of those realities. Who are the enlightened and who are the unenlightened? Dawkins has sacrificed wisdom and culture at the altar of engineering.
I would think that caring about which facts to pay attention to, in contrast to the facts themselves, is enough to show that there is at least one more thing that Dawkins cares about other than "just the facts"?
I’m so sick of the fundamentalist literalist lens just completely hamstringing any productive conversation. Both atheist and Christian get bogged down by that lens, it’s not useful and it’s completely missing the point of scripture
11:17 Asking JP to live up to his own rules should not be a problem, right? Rule 8. Tell the truth or at least don't lie. Rule 10. Be precise in your speech. Precise "Characterized by definiteness or exactness of expression; strictly or exactly defined". Oxford English Dictionary.
It is a question of the scale of time and space that scripture is cast upon. Many people see no further than the end of their nose of local place and generation. Scripture, however, views humankind from the scales of the millenarian and universal, and the always certain historic coming and going of the Universal, in image and epically compassed likeness, with every New World, and newly Modern as well as post Modern Age. The resurrection is formed on the transposition of such a given prophetic or millenarian vision, upon just such New Worlds and newly Universal Civilizations, of themselves, at those heights or horizons, then also forming the Most High God of Daniel, and the God of the Universe to the clear revelations of Islam, founded most singularly in writing from the oral, upon the Revelation of Jesus Christ. We are the dead rising again, in just such a New World and newly Universal and Imperial expansion of the marketplace, once again, today, as in the most Ancient of times. There are a cloud of witnesses from - (and even before) - Christopher Columbus as a biological harbinger of Christ, created anew by such a now newly Universal, New World advance, becoming the golden wedge of Ophir, as well, with the pyramidal-eye of Masonic Foundations of our Nation; to the more Roman Catholic crowning of President John Kennedy, in a given generation at such then newly universal heights, as the address of Saint John to the seven churches which are - (as the ruling cities or heads of certain Western European nations today) - once more, in Asia, militarily, politically, economically, and religiously, after an intervening Dark Age between they and the universality of Rome before. I Peter notes, concerning even the salvation of the Christian faith, that the prophets wrote of the age or time of Christ, which they saw, and was signified in judgment in them; so that those of such scriptural writings, did not write unto themselves, but unto those who come in the future in such same historically returning events, and forming the revelation of Jesus : the dead were therefore communicating unto the living in future generations, so that man became a living or always certain historic, and historically expressed soul, recognizing itself each time once again in such events. The Virgin Birth is not a factual physical birth biologically of a child, it is the tie of the Universal National Nativity of the Lord, to an always particular new Nation, and finally Universal Civilization and Empire, epically grown anew in another New World wilderness. We did the same politically in our National Mythology with our Founding Father, as the child Washington of the Virginia Colony - (did I just see the word, Virgin?) - taking an axe, as John the Baptist prophesied concerning its portent of the Lord’s coming, to his Father’s cherry tree in the Old World genealogy of kings; and as these became trees of the garden in Creation, having fruit whose seed, in such always certain Founding Fathers, is in itself, as an also always particular new Nation. In relation to Catholic and Protestant, in Luke, and the birthing of John as written or scripturally, and then directly and orally named in fulfillment, upon the epical wilderness of every New World and particular new Nation, the Virgin Queen Elizabeth bare the child Washington in those Protestant bases of John the Baptist, preaching the fulfillment of scripture therein; while the then more Catholic basis relates to Mary Queen of the Scots, as the cousin of Queen Elizabeth put to death, but re-emerging in Christ, in such New Worlds, and the given religious heritage of such particular new Nations, whereby those Protestant features obviously emerged from the earlier Western European foundation of Roman Catholicism, going back, in historic origins, to Ancient Rome and Jerusalem - (I think someone mentioned something to you the other day about the Anglican-Catholic Church, or something to that effect). The Nativity of Jesus Christ, however, not only comes at those later Universal heights, rather than in colonial founding. But it is cast in relation to such Old World kings in the genealogy going back to Abraham in Matthew, whereby wise men in such Old World religious foundations seek he that is to be born king of the Jews in such a New World and the future kingdoms to come therein on that new religious basis, and find the mother and child in their house of a private ownership of property and inheritance, formed anew upon every New World from such Old World imperial expansions, to become a star seen in the east, like our Lone Star State of Texas today, until it came and stood politically, historically, and culturally, no less than overall nationally, over where the young child was, when the torch was passed to a new generation of Americans. Luke, being a priestly genealogy instead, is centered upon shepherds in the field, in such provincial and pastoral features of religion, finding the child wrapped in swaddling clothes - (as presumably women’s undergarments, and relating to local culture in that wilderness to modern domestication, and hence, democratic ass and working class ox, of our Nation as a Yankee Doodle Dandy in the eyes of the English Empire, minding the music and the step of a seeming religious frivolity, while with the girls being handy) - and lying in a (German) manger, having the epical grasses or straw and provender, left out of the bricks by Pharaoh, but brought forth full tale with the Lord.
Hi Paul, perhaps we should talk about this... Methodologically there is a lot going on here. Dawkins is out of his depth when he says: 'you know that the virgin birth is based on a mistranslation of Isaiah...'
Read Isiah 7:14 in context. Talking about contemporary events. Matthew is ripping it out of context. 13Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? 14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel. 15By the time He knows enough to reject evil and choose good, He will be eating curds and honey. 16For before the boy knows enough to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste
@@tgrogan6049 You're quite right about the primary context, but applying something in a different context is not a mistranslation. Matthew chooses to quote from the Greek translation made by Alexandrian Jews. Your observation is important: You actually see that with most prophecies that Matthew is using, he applies it in a different context. (spoiler alert: that already starts in Isaiah!). This was an acceptable ways of using a prophetic text in a Jewish context and Matthew's community in particular. What can that teach us (rather than using the discrepancy in a materialist reductive sense)?
Good point! Dawkins should have said “ Matthew appropriated “ the story of a “virgin “ in Isaiah ( a young woman) and applied it to Jesus supposed miraculous incarnated “virgin birth “. As others have pointed out, this was a common practice of Jewish authors; to tie their historical narrative to the present. Paul and all the other Biblical authors did this, especially Paul. Paul’s heuristic is one way to interpret Jewish history. Many of Paul’s contemporaries did not buy his Cosmogony, these are present day Jews. Years, decades, centuries and millennia later, literalists read scripture and take the statements as literal “facts”. They don’t understand or care about “context “. I personally don’t need to believe in miracles in order to believe in God, Prophets, Mystics, Poets, Science and Religion. There is usually a large dose of Mythology mixed in with all religions. It’s what we do. Makes stories more compelling and powerful. Knowing this allows me to keep “the baby with the bath water.” Science is excellent for describing, measuring and understanding God’s physical, material Creation. Religion, philosophy and morality are absolutely necessary ( when focused on the highest possible values known) in helping humanity know what to “do “ with all our science and technology, and our stories.
@@basvanos1967 Wait I thought Matthew was a Jewish Tax collector? Why doesn't he know Hebrew? Papias said Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. Where is it? Why are NT writers continually quoting the LXX and not the Hebrew? So many questions and no answers. The context of Isaiah 7 references a contemporary event it has nothing to do with Jesus.
Watching Peterson having a conversation with a brick wall would have been more interesting. I find these 'new atheists' so boring, shallow and ignorant. Dawkins actually sits there for over an hour claiming repeatedly that he has no interest in stories, he's only interested in 'The Facts'... Then with zero self awareness he proceeds to tell an entirely fictional story of his imaginary history of evolution. A story he has based his entire world view on 🤦♂️
I felt like the first half of the conversation was Dawkins replaying all of his scripts for arguing with young earth fundamentalists and not understanding at all what Peterson was saying - and it made Dawkins seem like he was being deliberately obtuse (maybe he wasn’t, maybe he was just stuck in his scripts). About half way through they started having an actual conversation, but it’s clear that Dawkins doesn’t understand the importance of narrative and metaphor in framing moral choices.
Read the history of the Christian Church even in "Dominion" very little to be proud of at all. And the author of "Dominion" (not a historian) sugar coats much of it. "The history of Christianity is the best school for atheism". Franz Overbeck.
@@tgrogan6049 Why are you reading a book on the history of the church from someone you don't think is qualified to write about history? Are you a moron?
Richard Dawkins is not a honest agent . For him to to go there would complexity undermine his position . There is no point drawing him into dialogue. His aimed are to discredit Peterson.
I found the conversation pointless. The New Atheists are over. Long past their sell by date. And the reality is that Dawkins is wholly unqualified to discuss these subjects. He has a very simplistic and easily dismissed argument, which is that if science hasn’t verified something, it doesn’t exist. And he is only capable of the pose of a lawyer. It is very boring. The most noteworthy thing to me is how much he resembles and sounds like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars.
The study of identical twins separated at birth (the stuff of SCIENCE) show that IQ and personality are very strongly genetically determined. It isn't archetypes.
@@tgrogan6049 Neither do I. I say people can hate whatever they hate. If someone has to scream "hatefacts" it means they are losing the argument. I say sometimes mother nature is a witch.
New book out on JP! Well worth reading! Re. JP on Adam and Eve. "Peterson has stated that he didn’t understand the story of Adam and Eve until he read Paradise Lost. This remark reveals a couple of things about Peterson’s presuppositions. First, it assumes that the story of Adam and Eve has one specific meaning, which is other than that it actually happened (Peterson agrees that it didn’t). Second, this meaning must be difficult to identify; it must be non-evident to the ordinary reader, since Peterson, like most of us, has been familiar with this story since childhood, and didn’t know its meaning until he read Paradise Lost. Thirdly, the meaning Peterson has now arrived at is not something in the mind of the original author, or of the compiler who decided to include this tall tale in Genesis, or of any of the thousands of people who learned and studied this story for many centuries after that. We know this because the cosmology and theology of John Milton, the English Puritan who wrote Paradise Lost in 1667, are violently at odds with the cosmology and theology of the writers and compiler of the Torah and of the Torah’s devotees, especially pre-Exile devotees." Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses (p. 85). Carus Books. Kindle Edition.
What actually happened? Recent evidence is ... T Grogan commented on it. I don't know much more than that ;-) So when are you ... converting to Judaism? ;-)
"The truth of science is what gets us to the moon" - but why do we care that we're going to the moon?
Conquest of the galaxy! - Darth Vader
Exactly lol
Realisation of romantic, yearning imagination... to encounter the reality of our benign, ever-shifting, transmuting light-of-the-night...🌜
So blind. Science is the TOOL humans use to get to the moon. He's a caveman worshipping his hammer.
People were complaining on X about Peterson being wishy washy about the miracle questions, but Dawkins uses those questions as a heuristic to dismiss and ignore anyone who says “yes” - Peterson knows this and realizes there is no point to giving an answer that immediately ends the conversation.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." JP doesn't want to answer because his entire epistemological framework is clearly wrong.
@@tgrogan6049
Prove it. Empirically.
@@alanhill897 It works. Most propositions are false. Anyone who doesn't have a good BS detector is in for a world of hurt.
@@tgrogan6049 Psychology doesn't reduce to physics
@@tgrogan6049 So you agree with William James on Pragmatism?
Apologies for my bluntness, but the Dawkins / Peterson debate feels like grandparents yelling at Fox News. The kids have moved on. They are thirsty for living water. Let the dead bury their dead.
I feel the boredom and apathy. However, if we abandon what came before the "now," were repeating the revolutionary's mistake. We have to bring the baggage along with us.
@@Ehennings10 painful, but true.
Sounds like ageism to me. The science/sacred debate will continue until there is synthesis.
Peterson: Mom
Dawkins: Dad
O'Connor: "Should I put the casserole back in the oven again for when we finally decide to sit down at table?".......'>.....
@@lzzrdgrrl7379 😂
There needs to be a discussion on how Symbols and metaphors control and shape reality.. pragmatically MATH (symbols) has created all our homes, cars, tables etc.. so there is away symbols are greater to our reality bc we use them to master our world.
Pythagorean magical incantations.
@@williambranch4283 what device did you conjured your post with? Apple Android or PC?
@@j.harris83 Satan all the way down ... MS Windows PC. Pure evil ;-) Augustine of Hippo said ... damn the mathematicians ... he meant astrologers.
@@j.harris83take these devices away and most peoples worlds collapse into obscurity….
I hear what you're saying but my guess is the argument would then be, "math isn't symbols". I do think there should have been progress in the "Dragons or Predators" discussion, but Dawkins just seemed to dismiss this when there is clearly a correlation.
I suspect Bret Weinstein would have done a better job than O'Connor in steering clear of Dawkins' questions of factuality. JBP suggested Bret but apparently Dawkins rejected him and wanted O'Connor instead.
If there's a follow-up conversation I hope for a change in moderator.
Alex is a youngster with potential. Bret is seasoned.
Dawkins final statement is so remarkable. I think it's reflective of the whole conversation and his willful blindness of what is actually being discussed.
He says, with a smirk: "I believe in eternal things. I'm interested in things that were true before there were any humans, and will be true long after humans become extinct"
Where are these "eternal things" that science discovers? Isn't the scientific method supposed to get us ever closer, with increasing degrees of numerical precision to our theories but never quite there? Until, that is, a new theory arrives that improves on the former theory, and so on and so forth, god willingly?
Which physical laws were there before the dawn of time and space? Scientists refer to the Big Bang as a "singularity" event.
Which biology will remain after all life become extinct? How can these scientific findings be Eternal if they are not even everlasting?
In who's mind are these Facts going to be manifested in, after the heat death of the universe?
Doesn't this Science, with capital S, presupposes something more fundamental if it wants to claim perpetuity? Perhaps something truly Eternal? Something not bounded by our limited theories of space and time, but something that is actually beyond it?
Perhaps a mind, or intelligence, where these Ideas can reside in? Even if only "metaphorical", these notions have to be taken seriously. Maybe all this "symbolism" Dawkins complains about is the only way we can approach these eternal forms.
Dawkins makes it seem as if the Science he champions is "from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear it", as in Psalm 103:17. Makes him sound almost mystical in it's circularity, as David Bentley Hart usually puts it.
The mass of the electron at rest ... Aum
There were so many times I wish I could've jumped into Jordan's place in that conversation. It was very frustrating how Richard showed almost no interest in engaging with Jordan but it did make it clear that he is simply incapable of operating at that level of abstraction. It's just the way his mind works.
I feel bad for Dawkins. He’s clearly distraught that the sinking ship of science will drown his legacy. Why can’t he see that Jordan is begging for help in caulking the hull?
Science hatred is strong in these religionists. "Wisdom of the world is enmity against God". Dark ages mentality.
@@tgrogan6049 Your lack of faith is disturbing - Darth Vader
I didn't see Dawkins or any other boffins flying to the moon - those heroes were test pilots and adventurers. They got there on the wings of a myth. They weren't patting themselves on the back for how clever the maths was
Yes. Beautifully expressed.
And women computers who believed in themselves.
When I hear boffin I always think…
“Many boffins died bringing us this information”
Haruki Murakami has this gorgeous line somewhere at the end of his Windup Bird Chronicles: not every fact is a truth, and not every truth consists of facts. It's a poetic perspective unavailable to Dawkins.
Theology is poetry.
@@williambranch4283so is materialism
tell me a fact that isn't true right now
Just started the video so this might get covered but I can remember Pageau , Peterson and Bret Weinstein talking about science and religion. Or qualitative and quantitative. Pageau pointed out like Peterson did a qualitative value between fictional work. Peterson sees both and Dawkins or Bret seem blind to how even facts align hierarchically. In Genesis you have God breathing onto dust. The breath is qualitative and the dust is qualitative. Or that how I see it.
Dawkins chooses to repeat the false allegation that Isaiah was mistranslated because it suits his bias. He has no interest in sound Biblical scholarship.
Many Christian biblical scholars have acknowledged this error as well. Matthew made up many things.
@@tgrogan6049 So do you.
@@tgrogan6049guess he made up all the world mythologies as well 🙄
Agreed, he justifies his dismissal of the text by stating that he’s “quite familiar” with it, having grown up around it.
I’m quite interested in facts as well, maybe we can dig deeper into what exactly “quite familiar” looks like.
that was so frustrating, very shallow thinking!
I think you're right, he doesn't know how to answer questions like "do you believe Mary was a virgin" head on, concisely and efficiently to blunt them and move on to the meat and potatoes, but I place myself in his position and find myself in a similar boat. How would you answer those questions if you were him I wonder? Which "L" would you take and which "W"?
There is no spoon ...
@@williambranch4283 Exactly
Jordan Peterson should interview Tom Holland honestly.
Peterson's answer to this type of questioning from Dawkins needs to be some variation of: "Being able to label me a heretic to your faith is easy as you won't have to listen or wrestle with difficult questions. But my letting you do so is a disservice to you and to our audiences so I'm not playing the shibboleth game with you. Let's be brave and open minded and get to the real heart of the matter here together."
He's too gentle with his former tribe, often conceding they're on the high ground. Needs to be as assertive against their shibboleths as he is against the wokies'.
I specially like how Dawkins challenges JBP on the nature of the Christian mystery. Because it is after all a mystery. It is a matter of faith and the courage that goes along with that, as since the time of John the Baptist, the kingdom of God is not that easy to catch not even through quantum mechanics. Asking me if I believe that Mary was a virgin is like asking me if Christ will return one day.
Christianity, although it serves as a light to guide the world, at least to those in the world who are lost and want to be found by Christ, is not at our service as a tool for "predictive power". It is here for us to embrace for his salvific power.
Sacrifices is indeed at the basis of all healthy communities. But in this modern world none of our sacrifices are perfect. The divine instructions is to wait for the ultimate sacrifice to redeem the humanity as a whole both in time and space.
Peterson is playing according to me a more dangerous game than Dawkins. By saying that sacrifices are at the basis of community he wants to make a scientific point not a metaphysical one. He wants to gain predictive power for himself to anticipate the fall of Rome or make communities healthy or whatever. How surprise he will be when he will understand actually that there is no perfect sacrifice in this world except for one. This modern world with all his wonders is based on imperfect sacrifices and not often toward God. This is why he can't answer the question.
Substitute "Scientology", "Mormonism", "Christian Science", "Zoroastrianism", "Judaism" for Christianity. See the problem?
@@tgrogan6049 Substitute phlogiston, phrenology etc for superstrings ;-)
@@williambranch4283 Ha ha
Mary's virginity closes the door on earthly ascension to the Throne of God that circumambulates the very reason for the Birth in the first place.......
When it comes to philosophy, never mind theology, Dawkins is a big joke. The fact that anyone takes him seriously is a sign of the intellectual poverty of our times. Alex O'Connor knows the first part and his duplicity needs to be called out.
I got to the 17 min mark before dorkins' pedantic midwittery ground my patience to an unwilling stub. Point being, thanks for watching it; interested to hear your thoughts.
I understand commenters who say Dawkins "doesn't get it" or, more likely, that he does get it but is trying to narrow the discussion to an empiricist's frame... but I think it's fair to say JBP has taken the mythic / metaphorical approach to its absolute limit.
My answer to whether Jesus was born of a virgin or resurrected is "yes". When I say "yes" I'm not saying I understand it but I am saying I believe it in the factual sense Dawkins demands. If God is who we say he is than would it not be pride to restrict what we believe to what we can understand?
22:13 to pagaeu’s point: “what is attention?”
Ok, so this is a Simpsons episode.
What is mind? Doesn't matter. What is matter? Never mind ...
Jordan is trying to convince Dawkins that God is alive, or at minimum that "spirits" are a reality, but he wants to do it in a scientific/non-religious way. I agree that this kind of esoteric exploration and understanding is needed by the scientific community.
I can see that he is looking for better ways to explain these ideas to materialistic atheists. That's what this whole exercise with Dawkins is about.
I think he fell short in the first hour of the conversation but in the last 30 minutes they start to make decent progress. The DW exclusive part is much better, I think he finally found a way to connect their worldviews at the end. I hope they try again soon.
I think Jordan needs to find a why to explain his ideas without defaulting too quickly to how the thought derives from a Biblical story. Once he starts bringing up the Bible as an explanation it immediately derails the Dawkins types and makes them defensive.
Jordan needs to explain his ideas first without using myth or symbolic references. Once there is agreement on the importance of the idea he can bring up that the idea is encoded in one of the Biblical stories.
Dawkin's and those like him believe the Bible is just a collection of Bronze age myths that are very out dated and obsolete for the modern world. If Jordan can convince someone like Dawkins of the "divine ideas" he's found in these myths without mentioning the source he might make more progress towards his goal. Once Dawkins is convinced of the idea he can reveal that the idea is encoded in this or that Bible story without triggering his default anti-religion defenses.
What is embarassing to me is this discussion on christian mystery as a quest for predictive power tools. What is exactly do they want to predict here?
-Do you believe in Christianity ?
- Not sure but it was a sufficiently powerful tool to bring Rome to its knees.
- It is more than a tool with predictive power.
Operative men want power ... sorcery.
See my post above on "Bringing Rome to its knees" a ridiculous ahistorical statement.
No. It matters because Peterson cannot answer direct questions concerning magical claims made in The Bible. Instead, he obfuscates and misdirects. I thought Dawkins asked perfectly fair questions. One either believes Jesus walked on water, dispensed miracles, and raised the dead or one does not. This seems obvious.
If the universe were propositional in a Left brain way, if logic were reduced to either/or ...
The strength (diabolical strength?) of the historicity dilemma is proven by how troubled I feel after it is raised. This conversation, the Sam Harris and JBP talk from years ago, and others like it leave me feeling some cocktaiil of ennui and anxiety (perhaps there are better words for it). I feel motivated to anticipate and answer the historicity dilemma's questions. That motivation and anticipation seem to be perversions of faith, desire, and hope. It's almost as if the historicity dilemma is a game that can't be played infinitely. It's not something that would motivate Panksepp's rats to keep playing.
Also, within Christian fellowship, it's frustrating when 2 Timothy 4's 'do away with mythos' weighs-in and fellows throw their hats in the ring with Dawkins.
Yes the Historicl question is a problem. We say the virgin birth is amazing and so is the resurrection. We say we take the eye witness accounts as true. The new athiest say do you belleve them? They say they are lieing to you. The Athiests also say they are mad men who said these things. It is troubleing because you have to compare Trust, Truth and Miricales to every day life.
The funny thing is Jesus said you will do what i have done and even more. Chtistianity used to teach wisdom as a virtue. Now Athiest say wisdom is Science and not a virtue.
Doctors and Jesus then and now heal the sick. Jesus could heal the blind now doctors can heal some of the blind. Jesus raised the dead on the third day. Doctors can often do minutes or 30 is specale circumstances. A women can have a baby with out sex in a fertility clinic. Who much more would the Being who created us be compared to the Doctors LOL. We have everyday miricales based on wisdom and Athiests ignore them or say its science alone.
One of the thoughts that comes to mind which also relates surprisingly to the Unitarian vs Trinitarian debates is that while it may be prone to misunderstanding a historical tradition gives it followers concise language at least as a starting point. JBP is a smart guy but sometimes a DIY approach to faith conceals more than illuminates.
When we are arguing about the historical virgin birth we are actually arguing if there is a God that could make this happen, if it is a possibility then the historical question is very different
I think the historical answer is very interesting. If an earthly lineage to the Son of God cannot be established, earthly kings and tryants cannot claim it to subvert scripture to serve their ends and possibly to abolish the Word altogether.......
@@lzzrdgrrl7379 Definitely! I'd say that Dawkin's pressure on this topic isn't productive. Once the deeper questions are processed the upper layer of history becomes accessible and fruitful
My opinion is that Peterson does lean toward belief in a metaphysical reality of said miracles, but that he knows in this setting it is likely a trap and would devolve the conversation down into the literal vs literal arguments of truth, which is Dawkins’s sandbox. And by not playing that game, as clunky as it was, they were able to get to a few interesting convergences between archetypes and memes, which is the best anyone could have hoped for in the aired part of the conversation.
Because in his last conversation with Alex, he did admit to a possible metaphysical reality of the resurrection
Resurrection is available to everyone, metaphysically thru Jesus Christ. You won't enter Heaven except in a spiritual body, per Paul.
Well worth reading.
The archetype theory is unfalsifiable-how might the entire range of known stories be any different if there were no archetypes? There’s no way to rule out alternative explanations for similarities in many stories: first, the stories could have been spread by cultural contact; second, there’s a limited range of possibilities in human experience for basic story patterns; third, the stories could have been selected for by appeal to our aesthetic faculty (there are plot elements, known to Aristotle, Alexandre Dumas, and Joss Whedon, which make for an appealing story). Archetypes are just a myth.
Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses (p. 97). Carus Books. Kindle Edition.
@@tgrogan6049 There are seven basic stories. That is the real number of actual people on the Internet ;-)
It’s unclear to me why Dawkins is even there.
He doesn’t appear to have anything he wants to accomplish.
He asks no questions other than the embarrassing “did someone actually have intercourse with Mary…”.
I get what he’s technically asking, but when I reflect on the whole event, I’m suspecting that it was a nice trip and payday.
Jordan Peterson is pleading with him to seriously consider an area of literature he (Dawkins) is ignorant of and Jordan thinks that this literature aligns almost perfectly with a lot of the ideas that Dawkins holds but in the realm of ideas - but ideas that are so powerful and fundamental that our biology adapted to them.
Dawkins is just unwilling to concede that there might be any value in “truths” (read as: objective mathematical observations) of the kind that aren’t data points.
You are looking more rested ;-) I wish I could still sleep on my mother's couch ... that is the truth ;-)
Oh gosh, this conversation was frustrating.
Peterson wanted dialogue, whilst dawkins (and seemingly alex) wanted reductionist yes, no, or I don't know answers. What exactly does that achieve?
Dawkins lacks so much inquisition for someone who studied a science. I get you don't like religion, but at least try to create proper dialogue! It's like a tennis match that never gets going after the ball has been served...
Richard and Alex are Binars ...
Alex's comment is funny but I don't necessarily agree that JBP is the right hemisphere. I think he integrates the two hemispheres very well which is part of why he's compelling. Dawkins is definitely left hemisphere though.
Left hemisphere is the new "TOTAL DEPRAVITY" ad hominem with TLC.
@@tgrogan6049 Degeneracy of old age. Own it, gramps ;-)
Dawkins insists on being interested only in "truth", yet he only accepts "facts" (as defined in the scientific field) as the only valid forms / carriers of truth. I think that's what he needs to be pressed on.
Because if he says so, then his worldview falls apart. There are a lot of pre-axiomatic truth claims he accepts and uses to justify his own worildview (that are not "facts"). In said worldview he then denies any other forms of truth! It's so annyoing!
It would be watch a debate with him about basic epistemological topcis, like apriori / aposteriori truths, etc.
I sat down listening to the talk/debate being hopeful. Hopeful that Dawkins could make the jump, the "evolutionary adaptation", from his primitive materialistic worldviewto something more comprehensive. But alas, I was disappointed...
JP is Owned.
Sorry Paul but I think you have it the wrong way around. Sacrifice comes from the word sacred. To sacrifice means to make something sacred.
Origin of sacrifice1
First recorded in 1225-75; Middle English sacrifice, sacrifis(e), from Old French sacrefise, sacrefice, from Latin sacrificium “offering made to a deity, sacrifice,” equivalent to sacri- (combining form of sacer “holy, sacred”) + -fic-, combining form of facere “to make, build, construct” + -ium noun suffix; do 1; -ium ( def )
I’m pretty sure both words come from the word, ‘sacrum’. The bone at the bottom of your spine. Some traditions also relate it to the sacral chakra in that system, but again that comes from ‘sacrum’ bone as well.
The sacrifice of the spoils and despoilers of the city of Ai. They were kashered.
Re: your Vervaeke & Pageau conversation coming up... Vervaeke talks of 'reality' as being both confirming and surprising. The moments of affirmation and revelation both assure us of reality. Episode 48 of AftMC minute 16:28. It ties in with the modernist/fundamentalist split, sacredness, and historicity. It came to my mind and I hope it helps. Altars are places where we are both confirmed and surprised. Within and without. All in all.
Who’s going to interpret the facts?
Politics figures in here. See Sanhedrin.
Regarding virgin birth: well there are arguments that Jesus and John were brothers. (As in Luke: Mary had a vision and then directly went to the house of
Zacharia who had had a vision and been struck dumb ..)
And the motif of brothers is repeated: Cain and Abel, Jacob & Issau ...
That is, perhaps in contrast to the visions (or however you might characterize them) of resurrection and return to heaven, one might argue that Christian belief does not essentially rest on "virgin birth" (and some sort of biological asexual reproduction)....
Mark and John didn't require that bit of Hellenistic god-man drivel.
What has the alleged "getting to the moon" accomplished?
Proves that religion is bunk. It wasn't made of green cheese ;-)
Tang the drink and freeze dried ice cream also velcro
Increasing human knowledge of the universe. Something that Paul and other Christians see as useless and futile "wisdom of the world". Hence the Dark Ages.
@@tgrogan6049 Building bases for "Nazis on the Moon" movie.
@@tgrogan6049At the cost of human knowledge of humanity. Technology is transformative of the ecological, social and cultural tapestry, and technologists recklessly plow forward without awareness of those realities. Who are the enlightened and who are the unenlightened? Dawkins has sacrificed wisdom and culture at the altar of engineering.
I would think that caring about which facts to pay attention to, in contrast to the facts themselves, is enough to show that there is at least one more thing that Dawkins cares about other than "just the facts"?
I’m so sick of the fundamentalist literalist lens just completely hamstringing any productive conversation.
Both atheist and Christian get bogged down by that lens, it’s not useful and it’s completely missing the point of scripture
Is Dawkins a vegetarian who finds killing of animals for meat "disgusting"? Or is it just the offering it to God that he finds "disgusting"?
vegan you mean
And what informs his sense of disgust?
What fact explain it?
@@setiem13 Is he part of the vegan ideology?
11:17 Asking JP to live up to his own rules should not be a problem, right?
Rule 8. Tell the truth or at least don't lie.
Rule 10. Be precise in your speech.
Precise "Characterized by definiteness or exactness of expression; strictly or exactly defined". Oxford English Dictionary.
Lies all the way down. That is why I find your appeals to authority so ridiculous ;-))
@@williambranch4283 ????
It is a question of the scale of time and space that scripture is cast upon.
Many people see no further than the end of their nose of local place and generation.
Scripture, however, views humankind from the scales of the millenarian and universal, and the always certain historic coming and going of the Universal, in image and epically compassed likeness, with every New World, and newly Modern as well as post Modern Age.
The resurrection is formed on the transposition of such a given prophetic or millenarian vision, upon just such New Worlds and newly Universal Civilizations, of themselves, at those heights or horizons, then also forming the Most High God of Daniel, and the God of the Universe to the clear revelations of Islam, founded most singularly in writing from the oral, upon the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
We are the dead rising again, in just such a New World and newly Universal and Imperial expansion of the marketplace, once again, today, as in the most Ancient of times.
There are a cloud of witnesses from - (and even before) - Christopher Columbus as a biological harbinger of Christ, created anew by such a now newly Universal, New World advance, becoming the golden wedge of Ophir, as well, with the pyramidal-eye of Masonic Foundations of our Nation; to the more Roman Catholic crowning of President John Kennedy, in a given generation at such then newly universal heights, as the address of Saint John to the seven churches which are - (as the ruling cities or heads of certain Western European nations today) - once more, in Asia, militarily, politically, economically, and religiously, after an intervening Dark Age between they and the universality of Rome before.
I Peter notes, concerning even the salvation of the Christian faith, that the prophets wrote of the age or time of Christ, which they saw, and was signified in judgment in them; so that those of such scriptural writings, did not write unto themselves, but unto those who come in the future in such same historically returning events, and forming the revelation of Jesus : the dead were therefore communicating unto the living in future generations, so that man became a living or always certain historic, and historically expressed soul, recognizing itself each time once again in such events.
The Virgin Birth is not a factual physical birth biologically of a child, it is the tie of the Universal National Nativity of the Lord, to an always particular new Nation, and finally Universal Civilization and Empire, epically grown anew in another New World wilderness.
We did the same politically in our National Mythology with our Founding Father, as the child Washington of the Virginia Colony - (did I just see the word, Virgin?) - taking an axe, as John the Baptist prophesied concerning its portent of the Lord’s coming, to his Father’s cherry tree in the Old World genealogy of kings; and as these became trees of the garden in Creation, having fruit whose seed, in such always certain Founding Fathers, is in itself, as an also always particular new Nation.
In relation to Catholic and Protestant, in Luke, and the birthing of John as written or scripturally, and then directly and orally named in fulfillment, upon the epical wilderness of every New World and particular new Nation, the Virgin Queen Elizabeth bare the child Washington in those Protestant bases of John the Baptist, preaching the fulfillment of scripture therein; while the then more Catholic basis relates to Mary Queen of the Scots, as the cousin of Queen Elizabeth put to death, but re-emerging in Christ, in such New Worlds, and the given religious heritage of such particular new Nations, whereby those Protestant features obviously emerged from the earlier Western European foundation of Roman Catholicism, going back, in historic origins, to Ancient Rome and Jerusalem - (I think someone mentioned something to you the other day about the Anglican-Catholic Church, or something to that effect).
The Nativity of Jesus Christ, however, not only comes at those later Universal heights, rather than in colonial founding.
But it is cast in relation to such Old World kings in the genealogy going back to Abraham in Matthew, whereby wise men in such Old World religious foundations seek he that is to be born king of the Jews in such a New World and the future kingdoms to come therein on that new religious basis, and find the mother and child in their house of a private ownership of property and inheritance, formed anew upon every New World from such Old World imperial expansions, to become a star seen in the east, like our Lone Star State of Texas today, until it came and stood politically, historically, and culturally, no less than overall nationally, over where the young child was, when the torch was passed to a new generation of Americans.
Luke, being a priestly genealogy instead, is centered upon shepherds in the field, in such provincial and pastoral features of religion, finding the child wrapped in swaddling clothes - (as presumably women’s undergarments, and relating to local culture in that wilderness to modern domestication, and hence, democratic ass and working class ox, of our Nation as a Yankee Doodle Dandy in the eyes of the English Empire, minding the music and the step of a seeming religious frivolity, while with the girls being handy) - and lying in a (German) manger, having the epical grasses or straw and provender, left out of the bricks by Pharaoh, but brought forth full tale with the Lord.
What is this camera? The facial tracking is impressive
Hi Paul, perhaps we should talk about this... Methodologically there is a lot going on here. Dawkins is out of his depth when he says: 'you know that the virgin birth is based on a mistranslation of Isaiah...'
Read Isiah 7:14 in context. Talking about contemporary events. Matthew is ripping it out of context.
13Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God as well? 14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel. 15By the time He knows enough to reject evil and choose good, He will be eating curds and honey. 16For before the boy knows enough to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste
@@tgrogan6049 You are no Bible scholar, no scholar at all.
@@tgrogan6049 You're quite right about the primary context, but applying something in a different context is not a mistranslation. Matthew chooses to quote from the Greek translation made by Alexandrian Jews. Your observation is important: You actually see that with most prophecies that Matthew is using, he applies it in a different context. (spoiler alert: that already starts in Isaiah!). This was an acceptable ways of using a prophetic text in a Jewish context and Matthew's community in particular. What can that teach us (rather than using the discrepancy in a materialist reductive sense)?
Good point! Dawkins should have said “ Matthew appropriated “ the story of a “virgin “ in Isaiah ( a young woman) and applied it to Jesus supposed miraculous incarnated “virgin birth “. As others have pointed out, this was a common practice of Jewish authors; to tie their historical narrative to the present. Paul and all the other Biblical authors did this, especially Paul. Paul’s heuristic is one way to interpret Jewish history. Many of Paul’s contemporaries did not buy his Cosmogony, these are present day Jews.
Years, decades, centuries and millennia later, literalists read scripture and take the statements as literal “facts”. They don’t understand or care about “context “.
I personally don’t need to believe in miracles in order to believe in God, Prophets, Mystics, Poets, Science and Religion. There is usually a large dose of Mythology mixed in with all religions. It’s what we do. Makes stories more compelling and powerful. Knowing this allows me to keep “the baby with the bath water.”
Science is excellent for describing, measuring and understanding God’s physical, material Creation.
Religion, philosophy and morality are absolutely necessary ( when focused on the highest possible values known) in helping humanity know what to “do “ with all our science and technology, and our stories.
@@basvanos1967 Wait I thought Matthew was a Jewish Tax collector? Why doesn't he know Hebrew? Papias said Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew. Where is it? Why are NT writers continually quoting the LXX and not the Hebrew? So many questions and no answers. The context of Isaiah 7 references a contemporary event it has nothing to do with Jesus.
Your TH-cam ArkHive is a dragon
The reason for getting to the moon, was better ICBMs. The original Pythagorean cult was destroyed by arson.
Watching Peterson having a conversation with a brick wall would have been more interesting. I find these 'new atheists' so boring, shallow and ignorant. Dawkins actually sits there for over an hour claiming repeatedly that he has no interest in stories, he's only interested in 'The Facts'... Then with zero self awareness he proceeds to tell an entirely fictional story of his imaginary history of evolution. A story he has based his entire world view on 🤦♂️
I used to be a science hater like you. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution. Broaden your reading list and you will be amazed.
@@tgrogan6049 Which evolution? The one where there is progress instead of random mistakes?
I felt like the first half of the conversation was Dawkins replaying all of his scripts for arguing with young earth fundamentalists and not understanding at all what Peterson was saying - and it made Dawkins seem like he was being deliberately obtuse (maybe he wasn’t, maybe he was just stuck in his scripts). About half way through they started having an actual conversation, but it’s clear that Dawkins doesn’t understand the importance of narrative and metaphor in framing moral choices.
stuck in his script is right
Read the history of the Christian Church even in "Dominion" very little to be proud of at all. And the author of "Dominion" (not a historian) sugar coats much of it. "The history of Christianity is the best school for atheism". Franz Overbeck.
@@tgrogan6049 Oppie was a monster. We are all spawn of Satan.
@@tgrogan6049 Why are you reading a book on the history of the church from someone you don't think is qualified to write about history? Are you a moron?
@@tgrogan6049 You are blind.
Richard Dawkins is not a honest agent . For him to to go there would complexity undermine his position . There is no point drawing him into dialogue. His aimed are to discredit Peterson.
I found the conversation pointless. The New Atheists are over. Long past their sell by date. And the reality is that Dawkins is wholly unqualified to discuss these subjects. He has a very simplistic and easily dismissed argument, which is that if science hasn’t verified something, it doesn’t exist. And he is only capable of the pose of a lawyer. It is very boring. The most noteworthy thing to me is how much he resembles and sounds like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars.
Paul, your camera movement tracking your moving around, how? Apple stage-something tracks but tends to drift.
'SACRIFY thyself!' Didn't some ancient philosopher say that? :) 1 John 3:16
Re: environment and personality, at many levels. Individual and cultural.
Dasein.
The study of identical twins separated at birth (the stuff of SCIENCE) show that IQ and personality are very strongly genetically determined. It isn't archetypes.
@@tgrogan6049 Which doctor slapped you when you were born ;-)
@@tgrogan6049I think about how "The Science TM" hates the idea that DNA does anything to intelligence.
@@skylinefever I don't care what people "hate".
@@tgrogan6049 Neither do I. I say people can hate whatever they hate. If someone has to scream "hatefacts" it means they are losing the argument. I say sometimes mother nature is a witch.
New book out on JP! Well worth reading! Re. JP on Adam and Eve.
"Peterson has stated that he didn’t understand the story of Adam and Eve until he read Paradise Lost. This remark reveals a couple of things about Peterson’s presuppositions. First, it assumes that the story of Adam and Eve has one specific meaning, which is other than that it actually happened (Peterson agrees that it didn’t). Second, this meaning must be difficult to identify; it must be non-evident to the ordinary reader, since Peterson, like most of us, has been familiar with this story since childhood, and didn’t know its meaning until he read Paradise Lost. Thirdly, the meaning Peterson has now arrived at is not something in the mind of the original author, or of the compiler who decided to include this tall tale in Genesis, or of any of the thousands of people who learned and studied this story for many centuries after that. We know this because the cosmology and theology of John Milton, the English Puritan who wrote Paradise Lost in 1667, are violently at odds with the cosmology and theology of the writers and compiler of the Torah and of the Torah’s devotees, especially pre-Exile devotees."
Jordan Peterson: Critical Responses (p. 85). Carus Books. Kindle Edition.
What actually happened? Recent evidence is ... T Grogan commented on it. I don't know much more than that ;-) So when are you ... converting to Judaism? ;-)
@@williambranch4283 ??? See Rule #10
@@tgrogan6049 I reject rules.
Thanks for the heads up, will be getting this book.
@@Jared0203 Well worth reading. I am also reading a book critical of Sam Harris. Just to be fair.
Primero