@@Sacrifice.Online.for.Offline He is the moderator in this discussion, and if you mean about the corpus callosum then that is the bridge between the left and right hemispheres of the brain
Peterson: "Well, this interview really kills 2 birds with 1 stone." Dawkins: "That's ridiculous, we aren't killing any birds. We are sitting here talking"
@@williamsmith5049 The fact that christians are too blinded to see that dawkins is brilliant and that JP is using 10x more words than he has to to convince them that he is actually a believer, is one of the things that makes christianity and other religions bad for society. They blind people to reality, on a basis of nothing solid.
The enthusiasm of Peterson is truely inspiring. He wants to play and is trying his best to get Dawkins to dance with him. He does not give up because he believes in the beauty of the logos and the part Dawkins can play in it. Dawkins however stands on the side of the dancefloor refusing to bust out a move until the final song comes on called "the Baldwin-effect". All the effort Peterson has put in has finally paid off as they are tap dancing together.
It's funny, growing up in a religious community, I found relief in the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. Couple years ago, Peterson's lecture about the Bible made me reconnect with my upbringing. Not in terms of faith, I'm still very much atheist. But it comforted me that there was something of value in all those years I spent at Church. Now, with children of my own, I'm trying to navigate our deteriorating social fabric and I long for the religious life my parents had. What a strange journey it has been. I find myself siding a lot more with Peterson nowadays, which would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
That's a relief. I was getting so used to the negativity associated with JP, it's great to hear about someone who would've never imagined themselves taking a liking to him finding a connection there. I wish the best for you and your family!
Ikr, we take these kinds of discussions are taken for granted now, its crazy how much the internet has changed sharing of information. People 50 years ago wouldn't even dream of getting anything like this for free
Alex O'Connor has established himself as a good-faith interlocutor and mediator to both religous and non-religious philosophies. He is playing a crucial role in bridging the gap.
I remember reading 12 rules for life in 2018 as an atheist undergraduate, and despite being a massive fan of JP, the religious connotations made me judge his messaging in an almost arrogant manner. Now it’s 2024 and I have found faith and have never been happier or lived and loved with more purpose. I often find myself getting emotional watching JP, his passion for life is contagious, I hope I get the opportunity to thank him personally one day
Is that possible?, for me is like stop believing in Santa Claus, and then believing again, the is return impossible?, can you explain your history a little?
@@sosesuis I also had a similar experience. I can't say Jordan "made" me find God, but some of his ideas did help me find my own way eventually. I was definitely a Dawkins atheist in high school and early college though.
Whatever you think about Peterson, this conversation was almost unthinkable a decade ago. Peterson has offered a home for those of us who felt displaced by the cold humanism of the New Atheists. What a time to be alive.
@@paulthepainter2366 Bigot... another word that no longer has any meaning because of the left. The boy who cries wolf will be the next fairy tale that becomes reality.
Having watched 3/4ths through, this discussion marks a new key moment in Jordan’s public career and interest in the merging of psychology, religion, and story. I would recommend this to anyone as one of Jordan’s finest moments. Love his pursuit of truth and his unique usage of terminology to express these deep topics in an approach accessible to those unfamiliar with the literature on this subject.
A Materialist and a Mythologist go to a bar. Looking at his drink, the Mythologist says, “At once my dragon and my elixir of life!” The Materialist replies, “You drunk already? That’s obviously a whiskey!”
@@antoniootero1839 Both are also "wrong" too. There is nothing meaningfully called "a whiskey" at either the extreme microscopic (quantum) or extreme macroscopic (cosmological) scales. Ultimately, all anthropocentric distinctions between things are "untrue". Peterson almost hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that at a very fundemental level all things are "one". This isn't entirely true. At that fundamental level all things aren't "one" but they are "zero". In Buddhism, we call this non-dualism and sunyata. This is intrinsic to our worldview regardless of denomination.
@@I-am-Hrutvery enlightening. I once had the realization on psychedelics, that if Reality is non-dualistic, and language is dualistic, then all words, philosophies, religions, etc are all hogwash. It’s the Buddhist koan of the finger pointing to the moon
Meh Dawkins was boring throughout just saying he isn’t interested a million times. It takes two for this thing to work and it seemed Peterson was trying hard to get Dawkins to participate.
The issue is clearly deeper than that. Richard tries to make the case that the paint is more important than the painting, and the paint is what created the painting -- not seeing or refusing to admit that the artist made the painting by making use of the paint. In fact: the only reason the paint exists is because the artist wanted it. I read an art book not long ago, and a certain blue (lapis, I think, but maybe it was something else) around 1600 was worth more than gold. That should tell you something!
YEEEEES! Dawkins spoke to my ego during my young adult life...but now, older and "hopefully" wiser, Peterson speaks to my soul. Love them both, thank you for this wonderful discussion/debate
@@Nobody-Nowhere The stupidity of your comment shows you have 0 wisdom So blinded by your bias against anything relating to spiritual matters, soul doesn't have to mean what you think. He's simply saying Peterson is speaking to his being, who we are psychotically. I'm sure the whole combo went right over your head. You can even see Dawkins light bulbs going off he's starting to understand Peterson take more and more. If you don't have a self, then why are you trying to even establish a point.
This was good. The fact I felt actually invested and frustrated at times proves to me how good a conversation this was, and it highlighted important points.
Very frustrating how Dr. Dawkins doesn’t engage in the arguments. Dr Peterson has been thinking about these things on a way deeper level. You can really see that he’s been sharpening that sword for a long long time.
What’s even scarier is when you realise Dawkins in the position he’s in influencing others when he hasn’t even begun to think on the level of Peterson.
I know religion has been a key feature of his work and lectures since maps of meaning, but when Peterson began talking about religion much more actively on his channel over the last few years I have continually struggled to listen. He’s sounded completely all over the place at times. This is by far the most coherent he has sounded in that time. His last talk with Dawkins was a bit of a car crash but this was very well done. As someone who loves the use of story to tell us the truth, when he dances around the literal truth of the book he does not help himself, in this discussion he gives a good answer which means people will actually listen to the next bit. Agree with you and others, Dawkins is great but he doesn’t acknowledge that regardless of scientific facts, there is a truth to mythology/stories that can be useful. Ruins aspects of the conversation.
The first 25 minutes really highlight the difference in intellectual effort between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Dawkins. They're operating on two very different levels-Peterson is diving deep into metaphysics while Dawkins stays focused on facts and science. They’re not quite on the same wavelength. I wish Dawkins would engage more in exploration rather than asking interrogative questions, making it more of a dialogue.
Dawkins has a strong grasp of shallow concepts. Jordan has a strong grasp on deep concepts - which preceeds and necessitates a strong grasp on shallow concepts. You can't know what is deep without knowing what is shallow, but you can know shallow things without knowing the depths of the same thing.
Dawkins can't do that Because his worldview and mindset only allows itself to live within quantifiable reality. Even when JP attempts to bring the metaphysical world into that realm he refused it. Dawkins is a hypocrite. He doesn't care about truth.
I thought it was unfair of Dawkins. It's the first thing that I picked up on. Jordan is very open to exploration and genuine dialogue, where it seems Dawkins had an axe to grind. I never read or watched Dawkins, but the way I seen this, was he was trying to place Peterson into a pinned down predetermined character he thought Jordan to be.
Spot on. This is what always makes these conversations so frustrating. I've noticed that people like Sam Harris and Dawkins only choose to dig as deep as is necessary for them to understand the world and thus function successfully within it. But what they don't understand is that not everyone is as high IQ as them and therefore the "Facts" that they know to be true aren't self-evident to everyone else. This is where Peterson's ideas have a much wider reach which has impacted many more people in a positive way.
I don't know what's more hilarious: that we immediately got stuck on "did Cain and Able exist," or that Dawkins seems to have projected his Atheism into Peterson's book, while reading, that he missed the part that in the Book of Genesis, it does say that. So "within the context of the story" Peterson is literally correct, so much for Dawkins being a literalist.
Podcast Summary - Dawkins: You can't possibly believe [assertion of fact in purported historical record]. Peterson: I don't have to believe it for it to have value insofar as it gives man insight into himself. Dawkins: But that isn't truth as I narrowly define it because it doesn't advance scientific discovery. Peterson: Well, as a matter of documented history, if we don't apply the lessons of the purported historical record then our society will implode. Repeat ad nauseum
@@pauljohnson3584 Top summary. The archetypical character that Dawkins plays in the story of his own life does seem quite dull and boring, like its not balanced with reality. We live in a narrative world, that gets played out on top of a rational scientific factual layer.
@@jonobnz7597 but those two are still Separate tho ? That’s what I’m really confused about here all the people saying Dawkins can’t get over question I thought that was literally the point of getting them two together was to see where Peterson stands on this particular thing..
I love that Alex, despite his audience despising Peterson and branding him as a "pseudo-intellect", actually respects him and his intellect enough to engage with him repeatedly in good faith.
@@stevejhkhfda Not all of them of course, I like Alex quite a bit. But he has a lot of the "new atheist" redditor types who never got over their "religion bad-pill" phase.
@@stevejhkhfdanot all of his audience does, but just look at Alex's video on deconstructing Jordan Peterson on religion (or something like that) and you can see the vast majority of comments being very negative towards JP.
It feels like Dawkins is in a box, while Jordan is emphatically explaining the box, the outside of the box, the foundations of the box, the room the box is in, the house that holds the room where the box is. Every time he tries to explain it, Dawkins is lost after the first sentence. Thankfully there is a meeting of minds closer to the end
Thats because JP isnt afraid to operate on faith. Where Dawkins only operates on science. JP sees truths in religion. Sees them as good. Dawkins sees bad in religon. Sees them as cults. And once you die youll realize Dawkins was right.
Exactly. Dawkins is concerned about the spoon on the table. Peterson notices the spoon on the table, but he also notices the furniture, the pattern of their arrangement, the particular room, the entire building, and the world beyond that. They're not even on the same level.
Somebody commented that 'Richard is talking about paint, where Jordan is talking about the painting'. The issue is clearly deeper than that. Richard tries to make the case that the paint is more important than the painting, and the paint is what created the painting -- not seeing or refusing to admit that the artist made the painting by making use of the paint. In fact: the only reason the paint exists is because the artist wanted it. I read an art book not long ago, and a certain blue (lapis, I think, but maybe it was something else) around 1600 was worth more than gold. That should tell you something!
@@dafunkmonster T. Rexes roaming the planet 65 million years ago is as factual and as real as this very comment you're reading right now. "It's just a theory" exposes more of your ignorance than you think.
I’m only at 13:20 but it’s painfully obvious that Dawkins cares more about trivia than what matters. It’s like OCD or something. He can’t see the forest for the trees.
You have to be hyperspecific to pin down JP while he tries to stir up confusion so that people can somehow rationalize their desire for him to not be an atheist, which is is.
@@Youttubeuser20932 The issue is that was not the point of a debate to discuss Peterson's personal beliefs. Also, people's beliefs are complicated, some are stuck between being believers and agnostics or atheists.
@@Youttubeuser20932it's such a dumb point to pin him on though. Dawkins comes off as pedantic and unserious. Yes, Peterson has a tendency to speak in word salad but it's not that hard to understand that he views the story of Cain as emblematic of a deeper truth about humanity.
@@sababaratashvili8629 There is no explicit purpose to this debate, so any topic that arises is fair game, unless one party wishes to refuse to discuss it. JP could say "im not comfortable discussing my personal beliefs" and leave it at that, but he cooses to bs his way into convincing his fans that hes actually a christian
This is honestly one of the best discussions I've ever seen. It's absolutely fascinating how there is a common theme between Memes and Jungian Archetypes.
I mean, what's the difference with truth derived from a fictional story that portrays an archetypical character and the sorts of truths (or predictions) we derive from asuming that reality conforms to a structure like an infinite dimensional complex Hilbert space. They're both models of reality.
no, that was one of his weakest analogies, given the complete lack of conversion between logical and metaphorical deductions. jungian archetypes as a consequence of baldwin effect, however, was a much more interesting and unexpected idea. really cleverly thought-out imo.
Nice analogy but I would perhaps say that the closeminded-ness of Dawkins would probably translate to poor science. As even scientists must maintain flexibility in their thinking. In project management, I could easily see him becoming something of an egomaniac, shrouded in his own dogma, and not allowing creativity and free thinking (which science needs!) to develop. JP will at least hear you out, as long he deems your ideas well put-together enough in their own right
@@notbrad4873 Typical anti-Jewish sadness. Ben is famously pro-Moon landing and pro-America crushing the world in general. He just also thinks that having mindless terrorist Muslims controlling the Near East and wiping out every Jew is maybe immoral and unwise for both American and global interests. Have you seen Israel? They're the world-leaders in many areas of science right now, if nothing else. You should compare Israel to even parts of Europe, which are not worth much on these grounds. I don't see you supporting the removal of Poland or Thailand at all. Maybe you would if leftists or Islam invaded? Or is this issue purely with the Jews for you? Note: If you see the video Ben just did, he literally said that the best case for Israel is not on Biblical or racial grounds or otherwise, it's simply what would be best for the region: Israel or mindless terrorists? Very easy choice, unless you know something I don't about the moral worth and hidden genius of Hamas members? I'll wait.
oh my god Jordan, this is the most incredible conversation i've ever listened too thank you for arranging this and so fluently expressing yourself, its incredible to listen to your mind come out, and to see the beauty inside it profound, moving, inspirational, honest to the core, genuinely beautiful stuff Jordan, your a gift to our species. Thank you !
I was coming out of Mormonism and preferred and agreed mostly with Jordan peterson. Now I'm fully out of the church and I agree and understand Dawkins much better. I think Jordan peterson is very smart and knows a lot of useful things. I think its good to hear the conversation.
There is a channel called usefulcharts (Canadian jew, he studied theology) and it is an excellent resource to understand the history of religions. So, maybe it is good for understanding the religion you come from in a more neutral historical way. Then there are channels like metatron (he is a Italian historian) that are good to understand some aspects the catholic faith. Which could be another way to contrast it with which what you were taught. I think it matters a lot to take different approaches to this topic. Because it allows to understand the community you come from and to come to terms with it. All this topics are really complex. And they have different approaches.
I very much appreciate Alex being the moderator of this conversation. He is very skilled at keeping things on track, helping clarify Jordan, and diffusing some of the more contentious comments by Richard. Great conversation.
@@nicolasbascunan4013 He's also moderating a conversation between two of the most famous thinkers/articulators/publishers of our time. Clearly, they both appreciate him enough to make this possible, and moral relativism wasn't a yardstick there.
Slow clap. That's basically it. They both come off as frustrated/frustrating in this interview, but I think Peterson won on heart. He also has more of an open mind to Dawkins than vice versa. Dawkins is just rigid and patronising. Not a fan of his style
@@samyakjain727He’s also not even persuasive when being hyper-literal. For example, the absence of consecutive manuscript revisions is not proof that a story was not developed iteratively. For Dawkins to imply such a thing is absurd. Manuscripts decay. Humans didn’t always write things down. Even the manuscripts we value tend to get lost, burn, get eaten. And revised manuscripts would be more valuable than their predecessors.
@samyakjain727 He talks down to people like they're idiots for even contemplating creation/god/supernatural etc. His discussion with Ayaan hirsi ali was similar.
Peterson strides across the beach, taking in the view, expressing gratitude while Dawkins sits still counting grains of sand in the demand of proof that the beach is there.
About 15-20m in so far. Dawkins is exhausting in his inability to grasp metaphor. I think he's trying to pin Jordan Peterson down as not being a devout Creationist, which may have (some) merit in examining his stance on the factfulness of religion. But doing so erases the imbued and constructed meaning *of* religion. He is just cold and stubborn. And I think Alex kind of kisses his ass here
Richard and Alex literally looked like MI6 agents interrogating a foreign spy. When Alex said "You must understand what you're being asked here." that was like a scene from the Imitation Game
@@NamelessKing1597 I'm not claiming they don't coexist. My claim is that only following feelings while ignoring facts leads to more destruction than the opposite.
Thank you Alex O'Connor for facilitating this conversation. I saw you interview Richard Dawkins in Oxford this evening and you always bring a healthy dose of civility, balance as well as respectful challenge to these conversations. Thanks to Jordan and Richard for having this dialogue and for the work you do in your respective fields. I really should refrain from watching this until my essay is finished....we'll see...
I like when Dawkins said “Whenever you see a really complicated, beautifully DESIGNED piece of biology…” 😂. Granted, he wasn’t trying to make the point that anything biological is literally designed, but it was fun catching him say the word.
Dawkins has no ability to think laterally, openly, or associatively and it's why he continually cannot comprehend what Peterson is getting at. Actually, Dawkins, Peterson is not changing the subject he is illustrating an point, providing an example, and tying it back to the subject.
After watching this the second time, I have come to the conclusion that JP is right about Dragons, Dawkins is right about Genes and Cosmic Skeptic is right about Memes. Truly inspiring!
Having pursued graduate studies in religion, it was my experience that both Eliade and Neumann.were only taught to be critique as antiscientific ideologues. Peterson deserves much credit for promoting their work along with that of Jung and also, Dostoyevsky!
The way Dawkins destoryed religion in my mind through The God Delusion, not 100 hours of JBP lectures could resuscitate. JBP did teach me that society better follow religion or we are in trouble.
Although I am a fan of Dr. Richard Dawkins and an atheist, I'm an even bigger fan of Dr. Jordan Peterson and I LOVE his arguments, even though I do not believe in a god. It's truly incredible to hear Dr. Peterson so masterfully defending his arguments.
Exactly. I'm not convinced on the God front, but Peterson's ideas are so profound and helpful that it wouldn't be ridiculous to suggest he's one of the greatest minds of our time. Dawkins, on the other hand, while a great biologist, offers little to no value outside his field of expertise. And even there, I don't think he's exactly earth shattering.
Why does Richard just say “it doesn’t impress me” and dismiss everything. I wish he would have engaged in this conversation more because frankly I think Jordan was the only one playing ball in this “debate” ( Alex was great btw)
In relation to memes: for Peterson, a new influential artistic wave would be a manifestation of the logos, while for Dawkins, it is a social phenomenon not different from a virus
Healthy ?? He looked like he was having an aneurysm. The content was fascinating (from what I've seen) but I don't this is his most composed or relaxed state
I think Peterson’s frustration about questions of the sort “did a virgin gave birth to Jesus ..” comes from the place that he really wants to believe in the scripture , yet stays agnostic at the core. I respect him very much, I just wish for him to make the final leap
I actually came to the realization recently that he does this so that he can speak outside of the confines of being a Christian, as a Christian myself, it would be very hard for him to have these conversations if he was known to be a Christian, because how then could he argue from a perspective of intellectual curiosity rather than religious revelation. For example if Dawkins asked him “did Cain and Abel really exist?” He would either have to give a heretical response, or give the Christian answer and people like Dawkins would dismiss him, because they often dismiss metaphysics as a whole.
I disagree. I think it is just that the literalists approach is awfully boring and lead to a quick dead end. It is shallow and, as Jordan says, silly questions. And I agree. I've not finished listening to this video, but Dawkins so far has been awfully dense and frustratingly slow in helping to move the conversation forward. I wonder if Dawkins when reading a book, instead of caring for the story, analyses de colours, spacing and shapes of the letters.
This is why JP is easily the greatest intellectual of our generation. No close second. Who else can reach across the aisle and have productive conversations to this extent? I don't care if you strongly disagree with JP, you have to give the man his flowers.
He was in great form here, wasn't he ? I feel uplifted when I listen to JBP, as well as enlightened and informed. Two men here whose minds are not on the same wavelength but were finding some slightly more common ground near the end.
@@StopmotionStudios13 They are very hard to find these days. No one does it like JP. He even talks to thought leaders in almost every discipline. No one has gone as far as him in this pursuit. His YT channel is basically an intellectually diverse library.
I find it funny how Peterson immediately converts into a French postmodernist philosopher when asked direct questions about his favorite structure of belief
Great admiration for all parties involved in this discussion. It was amusing that, around the 42 minute mark, Dawkins began, in a way, mythologizing to subordinate the exercise of mythology. What I mean by that is this: he recounted the age of the earth, history of life, the trajectory of scientific conquest and discovery - not as dispassionate data, but he imbued the data with implicit metanarrative by virtue of his delivery. That counts as mythology, in a broader sense.
One of the most direct and profound statements that I have read from Jordan Peterson -- which underpins his entire thesis -- went something like this: "You can think of the world as a place of facts. You can also think of the world as a place in which to act." For me, this largely summarizes the entire space between the perspective of a Dawkins and that of Peterson. To say that religion is, historically speaking, the investigation of how to act, whereas science is the exploration of facts. Human beings HAD to figure out how to act before they figured out what was empirically "fact" is a difficult statement to challenge. Early in the interview, Dawkins says he doesn't care about symbols or myths, he's "interested in facts." I think the question there is -- What do you mean you don't care? You might be more intrigued and more interested in the facts of the matter, as it were... but the way you carry yourself is almost certainly so deeply routed in a perspective formed by millennia of human beings who were, at the time, learning how to act much more so than they were analyzing "facts." Great to have this conversation, and Alex O'Connor was a welcome moderator.
I’m so happy you got to have this time with Dr. Dawkins, dearest Dr. Peterson, I know how long you have been looking forward to it and how much you have worked to prepare for it. I was just thinking how well you look, your color is so good and your eyes are so bright and full of light, and I hope that you are feeling as well as you are looking. It looks to me that you thrived on this conversation and that is so much what I wanted for you. I can’t tell you how much. Here is a gentle hug And Ruth Anne’s love ❤
He's so insufferable .. I admire strong intellects, and even strong characters. But lack of humility or openness to other's opinion is not right. And actually antithetical to the nature of 'good science'
I’m here for both..all three actually…to me, and I’m nobody but Peterson continually dodges the questions with answers I think most people don’t understand which gives him a pass..I’ll listen but always skeptical when he has conversations with “the atheist type”..both are smarter than me. Thanks to all three
HUGE props and congratulations to Alex for putting himself into a position to be able to participate in and moderate a discussion between these two geniuses. As someone who is very close to Alex in age, I've gotta say that this is a huge inspiration to me. Well done all around.
This may be the most important and needed conversation in our lifetime. I would hope to see it continue into more areas of the different perspective. I'm no fan of Dawkins, nor am I impressed by him. But I am grateful for this conversation
![일상 속 기분 좋음 [Proto disco meme]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DwmEIaZ7XGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I’ve never felt more like a corpus callosum
who?
@@Sacrifice.Online.for.Offline The bridge between the left and right hemispheres of a brain :)
@@Sacrifice.Online.for.Offlinethe bridge between left brain (Dawkins) and right brain (Peterson)
@@Sacrifice.Online.for.OfflineBrain tissue connecting the left (logical) and right (creative) hemispheres
@@Sacrifice.Online.for.Offline He is the moderator in this discussion, and if you mean about the corpus callosum then that is the bridge between the left and right hemispheres of the brain
Peterson: "Well, this interview really kills 2 birds with 1 stone."
Dawkins: "That's ridiculous, we aren't killing any birds. We are sitting here talking"
Nailed it lol. Not everything is “If it’s not LITERAL, it’s not real.”
😂
😂
😂😂
@@evantaylorfishing7603 🎯
I was explaining to my wife why this episode is so exciting and her summary, “so it’s like Godzilla vs King Kong?”
lol
She's a keeper, bro.
@@Youttubeuser20932 for real
Huh? Dawkins is pathetic. This is Godzilla vs curious George
@@williamsmith5049 The fact that christians are too blinded to see that dawkins is brilliant and that JP is using 10x more words than he has to to convince them that he is actually a believer, is one of the things that makes christianity and other religions bad for society. They blind people to reality, on a basis of nothing solid.
The enthusiasm of Peterson is truely inspiring. He wants to play and is trying his best to get Dawkins to dance with him. He does not give up because he believes in the beauty of the logos and the part Dawkins can play in it. Dawkins however stands on the side of the dancefloor refusing to bust out a move until the final song comes on called "the Baldwin-effect". All the effort Peterson has put in has finally paid off as they are tap dancing together.
Love this haha
@@heidiooohs 😂😂
A beautiful dance
@@divelostmind yes indeed. Curious about the second part on the Daily wire..
Yes! It's because Peterson asked him the right questions!
It's funny, growing up in a religious community, I found relief in the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. Couple years ago, Peterson's lecture about the Bible made me reconnect with my upbringing. Not in terms of faith, I'm still very much atheist. But it comforted me that there was something of value in all those years I spent at Church. Now, with children of my own, I'm trying to navigate our deteriorating social fabric and I long for the religious life my parents had. What a strange journey it has been. I find myself siding a lot more with Peterson nowadays, which would have been unthinkable 15 years ago.
That's a relief. I was getting so used to the negativity associated with JP, it's great to hear about someone who would've never imagined themselves taking a liking to him finding a connection there. I wish the best for you and your family!
You should look into Jesus.
Hopefully you come back.
Keep the faith that you do have and nurture it, best of luck to you and your family!
Lets thank Alex's moustache for moderating this discussion. 🙏
He's going to have some detransitioner-level regret about doing the most important video of his life with that 'stache.
The scruffy little scamp grew up so fast :’)
The man just had to get himself looking mean enough to be a moderator.
Movember is almost here mate.. we have a whole month here in Australia dedicated to it for the men's cancer foundation I think it is.
😂😂
This is free? This is free!
😂 exactly
Minus the last 30 minutes
Which is good, I don't like how so many other experts gatekeep knowledge.
Ikr, we take these kinds of discussions are taken for granted now, its crazy how much the internet has changed sharing of information. People 50 years ago wouldn't even dream of getting anything like this for free
Cost a little less than a night with you're mother !! On the corner
Alex O'Connor has established himself as a good-faith interlocutor and mediator to both religous and non-religious philosophies. He is playing a crucial role in bridging the gap.
His moustache is bridging the gap between classy and crickey
The comment about Sherlock Holmes living on Baker Street is a perfect example - Dawkins was getting stuck on that point based on a misunderstanding.
I didn't see the need for him at all.
@@cleftturnip7774 As a moderator, that mean's he's doing his job.
for real, he’s a ray of light in a world full of fanaticism and stubbornness, always so well spoken, patient and calm
What a labor of love on Jordan's part. God bless him. And great job Alex.
I remember reading 12 rules for life in 2018 as an atheist undergraduate, and despite being a massive fan of JP, the religious connotations made me judge his messaging in an almost arrogant manner. Now it’s 2024 and I have found faith and have never been happier or lived and loved with more purpose.
I often find myself getting emotional watching JP, his passion for life is contagious, I hope I get the opportunity to thank him personally one day
Watching the guy that made me an atheist debate the guy that helped me return to my religious faith a great gift
What convinced you the atheist worldview is inferior to the religious worldview?
Is that possible?, for me is like stop believing in Santa Claus, and then believing again, the is return impossible?, can you explain your history a little?
@@sosesuiswatch Jonathan Pageu - Santa clause and the tooth fairy exist.
@@ninjason57He’s sat on the left in the video
@@sosesuis I also had a similar experience. I can't say Jordan "made" me find God, but some of his ideas did help me find my own way eventually. I was definitely a Dawkins atheist in high school and early college though.
Jordan makes so much sense to me. I find the way Richard dismisses things because they aren't literal is pretty frustrating.
Dawkins is a shallow thinker.
He thinks like a textbook
JBP thinks like an epic poem
Do you take the time to avoid figurative traffic, or just the literal stuff?
@@phetmoz If by shallow you mean realistic, then yes.. Otherwise, absolutely not.
@@Youttubeuser20932 Why not?
Whatever you think about Peterson, this conversation was almost unthinkable a decade ago. Peterson has offered a home for those of us who felt displaced by the cold humanism of the New Atheists. What a time to be alive.
Peterson is fairly cold.
Cold humanism of the new atheists?
“The worst kind of bias is the one that you’re not aware of.” - Steven Novella
Jordan has offered a home for bigots who can prove they aren't bigots with big word salad
What are you talking about, theories about the unconscious have been talked about for over 120 years.
@@paulthepainter2366
Bigot... another word that no longer has any meaning because of the left. The boy who cries wolf will be the next fairy tale that becomes reality.
Having watched 3/4ths through, this discussion marks a new key moment in Jordan’s public career and interest in the merging of psychology, religion, and story. I would recommend this to anyone as one of Jordan’s finest moments. Love his pursuit of truth and his unique usage of terminology to express these deep topics in an approach accessible to those unfamiliar with the literature on this subject.
We are blessed to be in the same era as Jordan Peterson he's a gem !
Agreed between 40-55 min he was actually breathing fire 😂
@@t2nexx561that makes no sense! people can't breathe actual fire!
A Materialist and a Mythologist go to a bar. Looking at his drink, the Mythologist says, “At once my dragon and my elixir of life!” The Materialist replies, “You drunk already? That’s obviously a whiskey!”
And they’re both correct 😂
One is delusional @@antoniootero1839
underrated comment
@@antoniootero1839 Both are also "wrong" too. There is nothing meaningfully called "a whiskey" at either the extreme microscopic (quantum) or extreme macroscopic (cosmological) scales. Ultimately, all anthropocentric distinctions between things are "untrue". Peterson almost hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that at a very fundemental level all things are "one". This isn't entirely true. At that fundamental level all things aren't "one" but they are "zero". In Buddhism, we call this non-dualism and sunyata. This is intrinsic to our worldview regardless of denomination.
@@I-am-Hrutvery enlightening. I once had the realization on psychedelics, that if Reality is non-dualistic, and language is dualistic, then all words, philosophies, religions, etc are all hogwash. It’s the Buddhist koan of the finger pointing to the moon
I grew up reading Dawkins, and found Peterson as an adult. I am here for both of them.
Exact same. Seems like there are many of us.
Me too. Have you readIian McGhilcrest? so helpful at uniting science with the metaphysical.
Same, i seek that specific conciliation
I'd be happy to call both my dad lol
I'm here for neither, I'm here for the third person of this conversation that's not seen but more there then any of them
These two could have a 10 part series, and I'd be all for it.
Meh Dawkins was boring throughout just saying he isn’t interested a million times. It takes two for this thing to work and it seemed Peterson was trying hard to get Dawkins to participate.
One is talking about the painting and the other about the paint.
The issue is clearly deeper than that.
Richard tries to make the case that the paint is more important than the painting, and the paint is what created the painting -- not seeing or refusing to admit that the artist made the painting by making use of the paint. In fact: the only reason the paint exists is because the artist wanted it. I read an art book not long ago, and a certain blue (lapis, I think, but maybe it was something else) around 1600 was worth more than gold. That should tell you something!
@@MCharlesPaintinggreatly put friend!
@CH-vc3yz great analogy
Alex's conversation with Jordan was way better and actually flowed.
YEEEEES!
Dawkins spoke to my ego during my young adult life...but now, older and "hopefully" wiser, Peterson speaks to my soul.
Love them both, thank you for this wonderful discussion/debate
I dont think you know what an ego is, and as there are no souls not sure what you are even talking about. You definitely did not grow wiser.
You sound just like every arrogant kid who reads his first book without picturs, only the ignorant can be so overconfident@Nobody-Nowhere
@@Nobody-Nowhere The stupidity of your comment shows you have 0 wisdom
So blinded by your bias against anything relating to spiritual matters, soul doesn't have to mean what you think.
He's simply saying Peterson is speaking to his being, who we are psychotically.
I'm sure the whole combo went right over your head.
You can even see Dawkins light bulbs going off he's starting to understand Peterson take more and more.
If you don't have a self, then why are you trying to even establish a point.
@@Nobody-Nowhere fool
Complete opposite for me.
I love how Peterson and Dawkins have subconsciously pressured Alex into wearing a suit as well, lol
This is my Super Bowl
Agreed!!!
Superb 🦉 Owl
Same!
Watch any of the Lennox and Dawkins discussions if you haven't yet.
Amen
This was good. The fact I felt actually invested and frustrated at times proves to me how good a conversation this was, and it highlighted important points.
Very frustrating how Dr. Dawkins doesn’t engage in the arguments. Dr Peterson has been thinking about these things on a way deeper level. You can really see that he’s been sharpening that sword for a long long time.
starting to think he is unable to
What’s even scarier is when you realise Dawkins in the position he’s in influencing others when he hasn’t even begun to think on the level of Peterson.
He'll be jailed when he returns in his home country, probably
I know religion has been a key feature of his work and lectures since maps of meaning, but when Peterson began talking about religion much more actively on his channel over the last few years I have continually struggled to listen. He’s sounded completely all over the place at times.
This is by far the most coherent he has sounded in that time. His last talk with Dawkins was a bit of a car crash but this was very well done. As someone who loves the use of story to tell us the truth, when he dances around the literal truth of the book he does not help himself, in this discussion he gives a good answer which means people will actually listen to the next bit.
Agree with you and others, Dawkins is great but he doesn’t acknowledge that regardless of scientific facts, there is a truth to mythology/stories that can be useful. Ruins aspects of the conversation.
I don’t understand what motivated Dawkins to join the show. He was “disinterested” in nearly everything.
The first 25 minutes really highlight the difference in intellectual effort between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Dawkins. They're operating on two very different levels-Peterson is diving deep into metaphysics while Dawkins stays focused on facts and science. They’re not quite on the same wavelength. I wish Dawkins would engage more in exploration rather than asking interrogative questions, making it more of a dialogue.
Dawkins has a strong grasp of shallow concepts. Jordan has a strong grasp on deep concepts - which preceeds and necessitates a strong grasp on shallow concepts. You can't know what is deep without knowing what is shallow, but you can know shallow things without knowing the depths of the same thing.
I love this comment... that's exactly the frustration I feel while listening to their cain and abel dialogue
Dawkins can't do that Because his worldview and mindset only allows itself to live within quantifiable reality. Even when JP attempts to bring the metaphysical world into that realm he refused it. Dawkins is a hypocrite. He doesn't care about truth.
I thought it was unfair of Dawkins. It's the first thing that I picked up on. Jordan is very open to exploration and genuine dialogue, where it seems Dawkins had an axe to grind. I never read or watched Dawkins, but the way I seen this, was he was trying to place Peterson into a pinned down predetermined character he thought Jordan to be.
Spot on. This is what always makes these conversations so frustrating. I've noticed that people like Sam Harris and Dawkins only choose to dig as deep as is necessary for them to understand the world and thus function successfully within it. But what they don't understand is that not everyone is as high IQ as them and therefore the "Facts" that they know to be true aren't self-evident to everyone else. This is where Peterson's ideas have a much wider reach which has impacted many more people in a positive way.
Jordan Peterson is so physically active when speaking that he probably doesn't need the gym to stay trim.. Lol
All his activity still doesn't make him right?
@@asfdadfgdasfh4444 who said that?
That and he eats zero carbs.
@@asfdadfgdasfh4444 lol wtf, talk about starting an argument with something no one said.
@@MoveQuick4 LOL fr
Can we just appreciate that they spend ten minutes talking about dragons?
😂
lol
Lol
Lol
...with two dinosaurs outside
What a brillaint discussion, JP showing intellectual capacity at his finest
What a gift this was. Truly thank you all involved
I don't know what's more hilarious: that we immediately got stuck on "did Cain and Able exist," or that Dawkins seems to have projected his Atheism into Peterson's book, while reading, that he missed the part that in the Book of Genesis, it does say that. So "within the context of the story" Peterson is literally correct, so much for Dawkins being a literalist.
I feel Dawkins is very surface level
Podcast Summary -
Dawkins: You can't possibly believe [assertion of fact in purported historical record].
Peterson: I don't have to believe it for it to have value insofar as it gives man insight into himself.
Dawkins: But that isn't truth as I narrowly define it because it doesn't advance scientific discovery.
Peterson: Well, as a matter of documented history, if we don't apply the lessons of the purported historical record then our society will implode.
Repeat ad nauseum
He’s only a literalist in so far as it serves as a tool to humiliate superstitious bumpkins.
@@pauljohnson3584 Top summary. The archetypical character that Dawkins plays in the story of his own life does seem quite dull and boring, like its not balanced with reality. We live in a narrative world, that gets played out on top of a rational scientific factual layer.
@@jonobnz7597 but those two are still
Separate tho ? That’s what I’m really confused about here all the people saying Dawkins can’t get over question I thought that was literally the point of getting them two together was to see where Peterson stands on this particular thing..
I love that Alex, despite his audience despising Peterson and branding him as a "pseudo-intellect", actually respects him and his intellect enough to engage with him repeatedly in good faith.
Anyone who labels someone with JP's resume a "pseudo-intellect" probably just disagrees with something he's said and is too immature to call it that 😅
does his audience despise Peterson? That sounds quite strong....I follow Alex and have a lot of appreciation for Peterson.
@@stevejhkhfda Not all of them of course, I like Alex quite a bit. But he has a lot of the "new atheist" redditor types who never got over their "religion bad-pill" phase.
@@stevejhkhfdanot all of his audience does, but just look at Alex's video on deconstructing Jordan Peterson on religion (or something like that) and you can see the vast majority of comments being very negative towards JP.
Well, he also knows that engaging with Peterson is good for clout. Alex has been pretty dismissive of Peterson's ideas himself when he wasn't arround.
It feels like Dawkins is in a box, while Jordan is emphatically explaining the box, the outside of the box, the foundations of the box, the room the box is in, the house that holds the room where the box is. Every time he tries to explain it, Dawkins is lost after the first sentence. Thankfully there is a meeting of minds closer to the end
Thats because JP isnt afraid to operate on faith. Where Dawkins only operates on science.
JP sees truths in religion. Sees them as good. Dawkins sees bad in religon. Sees them as cults.
And once you die youll realize Dawkins was right.
This.
Exactly. Dawkins is concerned about the spoon on the table. Peterson notices the spoon on the table, but he also notices the furniture, the pattern of their arrangement, the particular room, the entire building, and the world beyond that.
They're not even on the same level.
Somebody commented that 'Richard is talking about paint, where Jordan is talking about the painting'.
The issue is clearly deeper than that.
Richard tries to make the case that the paint is more important than the painting, and the paint is what created the painting -- not seeing or refusing to admit that the artist made the painting by making use of the paint. In fact: the only reason the paint exists is because the artist wanted it. I read an art book not long ago, and a certain blue (lapis, I think, but maybe it was something else) around 1600 was worth more than gold. That should tell you something!
Dawkins spend his life criticizing those who step outside the box, he is too much invested to even look.
Started with Dawkins/Harris. Graduated to Peterson. I attribute much of my adult transformation to Jordan’s teachings.
"lion is gene; dragon is meme". That's a good quote, Alex. Well said
"I'm not interested in dragons," he says, with historically inaccurate tyrannosaurus rexes behind him, made me laugh
You mean the prehistoric creatures?
@@99mm66You sure they’re actually prehistoric?
I mean, that’s a theory of course.
@@dafunkmonster T. Rexes roaming the planet 65 million years ago is as factual and as real as this very comment you're reading right now. "It's just a theory" exposes more of your ignorance than you think.
@@dageustice exactly I think people
Really really need to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Oh lord let me sit and watch this with my popcorn 😂😂😂😂
Yes yes 😍😍😍😍😍😍
Same 😂
Indeed 😂
I've got cheeses and nuts because I do keto but I am right there with you.
I’m only at 13:20 but it’s painfully obvious that Dawkins cares more about trivia than what matters. It’s like OCD or something. He can’t see the forest for the trees.
You have to be hyperspecific to pin down JP while he tries to stir up confusion so that people can somehow rationalize their desire for him to not be an atheist, which is is.
@@Youttubeuser20932 The issue is that was not the point of a debate to discuss Peterson's personal beliefs. Also, people's beliefs are complicated, some are stuck between being believers and agnostics or atheists.
Yeah it’s like he can’t see beyond earth
@@Youttubeuser20932it's such a dumb point to pin him on though. Dawkins comes off as pedantic and unserious. Yes, Peterson has a tendency to speak in word salad but it's not that hard to understand that he views the story of Cain as emblematic of a deeper truth about humanity.
@@sababaratashvili8629 There is no explicit purpose to this debate, so any topic that arises is fair game, unless one party wishes to refuse to discuss it. JP could say "im not comfortable discussing my personal beliefs" and leave it at that, but he cooses to bs his way into convincing his fans that hes actually a christian
This is honestly one of the best discussions I've ever seen. It's absolutely fascinating how there is a common theme between Memes and Jungian Archetypes.
Dr. Peterson really brought home the discussion with the quantum mechanical analogy. Brilliant!
I mean, what's the difference with truth derived from a fictional story that portrays an archetypical character and the sorts of truths (or predictions) we derive from asuming that reality conforms to a structure like an infinite dimensional complex Hilbert space. They're both models of reality.
no, that was one of his weakest analogies, given the complete lack of conversion between logical and metaphorical deductions. jungian archetypes as a consequence of baldwin effect, however, was a much more interesting and unexpected idea. really cleverly thought-out imo.
Dawkins' thinking will get us to the Moon. Peterson's thinking help us understand why we wanted to go in the first place.
Nice analogy but I would perhaps say that the closeminded-ness of Dawkins would probably translate to poor science. As even scientists must maintain flexibility in their thinking. In project management, I could easily see him becoming something of an egomaniac, shrouded in his own dogma, and not allowing creativity and free thinking (which science needs!) to develop. JP will at least hear you out, as long he deems your ideas well put-together enough in their own right
And not kill each other before we do so
brilliantly put
Now bring in Ben Shapiro's thinking to explain why going to the moon is perhaps not the best use of our money when we could instead send it to Israel
@@notbrad4873 Typical anti-Jewish sadness. Ben is famously pro-Moon landing and pro-America crushing the world in general. He just also thinks that having mindless terrorist Muslims controlling the Near East and wiping out every Jew is maybe immoral and unwise for both American and global interests. Have you seen Israel? They're the world-leaders in many areas of science right now, if nothing else. You should compare Israel to even parts of Europe, which are not worth much on these grounds. I don't see you supporting the removal of Poland or Thailand at all. Maybe you would if leftists or Islam invaded? Or is this issue purely with the Jews for you?
Note: If you see the video Ben just did, he literally said that the best case for Israel is not on Biblical or racial grounds or otherwise, it's simply what would be best for the region: Israel or mindless terrorists? Very easy choice, unless you know something I don't about the moral worth and hidden genius of Hamas members? I'll wait.
Alex's moustache is the sinister offspring of an archetype and a meme, roughly speaking.
LMFAO
funny but useless, thank you sir
That really cracked me up, man!!!
oh my god Jordan, this is the most incredible conversation i've ever listened too
thank you for arranging this and so fluently expressing yourself, its incredible to listen to your mind come out, and to see the beauty inside it
profound, moving, inspirational, honest to the core, genuinely beautiful stuff Jordan, your a gift to our species. Thank you !
I was coming out of Mormonism and preferred and agreed mostly with Jordan peterson. Now I'm fully out of the church and I agree and understand Dawkins much better. I think Jordan peterson is very smart and knows a lot of useful things. I think its good to hear the conversation.
There is a channel called usefulcharts (Canadian jew, he studied theology) and it is an excellent resource to understand the history of religions. So, maybe it is good for understanding the religion you come from in a more neutral historical way.
Then there are channels like metatron (he is a Italian historian) that are good to understand some aspects the catholic faith. Which could be another way to contrast it with which what you were taught.
I think it matters a lot to take different approaches to this topic. Because it allows to understand the community you come from and to come to terms with it.
All this topics are really complex. And they have different approaches.
I see a lack of desire from Hawkins of WANTING to go down to how deep Peterson has thought through these things.
Because if he goes deep, he will find atheism as a dry and nonsensical religion.
I very much appreciate Alex being the moderator of this conversation. He is very skilled at keeping things on track, helping clarify Jordan, and diffusing some of the more contentious comments by Richard. Great conversation.
He's still a nihilist, a moral relativist.
@@nicolasbascunan4013what does that even remotely have anything to do with the comment or the video here?
@@nicolasbascunan4013 He's also moderating a conversation between two of the most famous thinkers/articulators/publishers of our time. Clearly, they both appreciate him enough to make this possible, and moral relativism wasn't a yardstick there.
Summary: Biologist wants to prioritise the quantitative, Psychologist wants to prioritise the qualitative.
Well put. I was gonna frame it similarly
Summary: Is vs Ought
Slow clap. That's basically it. They both come off as frustrated/frustrating in this interview, but I think Peterson won on heart. He also has more of an open mind to Dawkins than vice versa. Dawkins is just rigid and patronising. Not a fan of his style
@@samyakjain727He’s also not even persuasive when being hyper-literal.
For example, the absence of consecutive manuscript revisions is not proof that a story was not developed iteratively. For Dawkins to imply such a thing is absurd.
Manuscripts decay.
Humans didn’t always write things down.
Even the manuscripts we value tend to get lost, burn, get eaten.
And revised manuscripts would be more valuable than their predecessors.
@samyakjain727 He talks down to people like they're idiots for even contemplating creation/god/supernatural etc. His discussion with Ayaan hirsi ali was similar.
Peterson strides across the beach, taking in the view, expressing gratitude while Dawkins sits still counting grains of sand in the demand of proof that the beach is there.
Well put. I know what type of beach experience I want to have in life
An excellent way of characterizing this, nice one 😎
To the top with you, sir!
About 15-20m in so far. Dawkins is exhausting in his inability to grasp metaphor. I think he's trying to pin Jordan Peterson down as not being a devout Creationist, which may have (some) merit in examining his stance on the factfulness of religion. But doing so erases the imbued and constructed meaning *of* religion. He is just cold and stubborn. And I think Alex kind of kisses his ass here
@@samyakjain727 Alex still has a ways to go himself.
Moderator of the century! Alex, you rock.
Richard and Alex literally looked like MI6 agents interrogating a foreign spy. When Alex said "You must understand what you're being asked here." that was like a scene from the Imitation Game
Massive respect to Alex for being so gracious and respectable despite having an audience that is quite the opposite.
My favorite of Peterson is when he’s with a contentious opponent. I hope we get more in the future
43:09 this part of the debate is some of the best I’ve heard from Jordan Peterson.
Nailed it!
Very profound, indeed.
Yep that was incredible. Dawkins: “that doesn’t impress me” 🙄
I was gonna say this as well he absolutely murdered that part
He was on fire this WHOLE discussion!
“I think you have to think about it hierarchically” - one of the most Petersonian quotes out there
This conversation was absolutely incredible. Especially towards the end. I'm so thankful Alex was there to moderate too.
- Facts dont care about your feelings
- Jokes on you, feelings dont care about facts either
true, but the end result of following one vs the other can be success or destruction.
Fact: Jordan Peterson is a bigot
@@ninjason57 maybe the answer is to have balance between those two
@@ninjason57 Not really, feelings are the reason we seek fact, and facts are the reason we have feelings.
@@NamelessKing1597 I'm not claiming they don't coexist. My claim is that only following feelings while ignoring facts leads to more destruction than the opposite.
Thank you Alex O'Connor for facilitating this conversation. I saw you interview Richard Dawkins in Oxford this evening and you always bring a healthy dose of civility, balance as well as respectful challenge to these conversations. Thanks to Jordan and Richard for having this dialogue and for the work you do in your respective fields. I really should refrain from watching this until my essay is finished....we'll see...
Its funny to see atheist with civility and respectful behavior. They disguise like a religious people.
What a time to be alive. Definitively fascinating conversation.
Alex's interjection at 56:30 is exactly what needed to be said. Profound observation
I like when Dawkins said “Whenever you see a really complicated, beautifully DESIGNED piece of biology…” 😂. Granted, he wasn’t trying to make the point that anything biological is literally designed, but it was fun catching him say the word.
Dawkins: "You are changing the subject"
Peterson: "No, I don't think so. I may be leaping outside of the topic a bit"
This part gave me a chuckle ngl
It's a metaphorical truth you stupid fuck!!!
He was basically going to bring it back to Dawkin’s valuing Christianity over Islam as an answer to Dawkin’s question over Christianity’s value.
Dawkins has no ability to think laterally, openly, or associatively and it's why he continually cannot comprehend what Peterson is getting at. Actually, Dawkins, Peterson is not changing the subject he is illustrating an point, providing an example, and tying it back to the subject.
Peterson has trouble making his point without going round the houses for 10 minutes first.
@@jakobjas4212Seems so. Reminds me of people who refuse to define what a woman is
Wow I am in utter shock amazing job by Peterson here I have never seen such a precise argument from him.
He’s gotten much better over the years. He used to do terribly in debates. Here, he’s great.
He was on fire for sure. This was incredible on his part!
Nice conversation between Peterson, Dawkins and British slave owner from 1800’s.
😂
Would have to be the first 7 years.
It's so weird that this discussion reflects the struggle I carry with me since I started venturing into science
How anyone thinks Dawkins is some sort of brilliant mind that is deserving of any recognition or attention is insane to me.
24:45 An absolutely masterfully timed ad break. Perhaps the best one I've ever seen.
It will be studied for ages lol
After watching this the second time, I have come to the conclusion that JP is right about Dragons, Dawkins is right about Genes and Cosmic Skeptic is right about Memes. Truly inspiring!
I want the world to have more conversations of people like this
Having pursued graduate studies in religion, it was my experience that both Eliade and Neumann.were only taught to be critique as antiscientific ideologues. Peterson deserves much credit for promoting their work along with that of Jung and also, Dostoyevsky!
The way Dawkins destoryed religion in my mind through The God Delusion, not 100 hours of JBP lectures could resuscitate. JBP did teach me that society better follow religion or we are in trouble.
The winner of this debate is Alex’s mustache
Although I am a fan of Dr. Richard Dawkins and an atheist, I'm an even bigger fan of Dr. Jordan Peterson and I LOVE his arguments, even though I do not believe in a god. It's truly incredible to hear Dr. Peterson so masterfully defending his arguments.
Agreed, Dawkins and the atheist types are so utterly uninspiring.
On one side in the beginning God made all and on the other side in the beginning nothing made all.
Maybe you don't believe in a god but you believe in his Word?
Exactly. I'm not convinced on the God front, but Peterson's ideas are so profound and helpful that it wouldn't be ridiculous to suggest he's one of the greatest minds of our time.
Dawkins, on the other hand, while a great biologist, offers little to no value outside his field of expertise. And even there, I don't think he's exactly earth shattering.
@@gregorio853 the last 30 minutes showed how one dimensional Dawkins is. He wasn't in the conversation. He simply wasn't playing.
33:36 Dawkinssss mannnn Literature captures humanity and it is true to the degree in which it resonates!!!
Why does Richard just say “it doesn’t impress me” and dismiss everything. I wish he would have engaged in this conversation more because frankly I think Jordan was the only one playing ball in this “debate” ( Alex was great btw)
He doesn’t want to play on a field he can’t win on. It’s very clear Jordan is less closed minded. His depth in concepts is proof
@@CaptainSurfy I agree 💯
This might be the best clearest I’ve ever heard Jordan express his ideas. And this is the perfect conversation for it!
In relation to memes: for Peterson, a new influential artistic wave would be a manifestation of the logos, while for Dawkins, it is a social phenomenon not different from a virus
This is the sort of healthy conversation we need, Dr Peterson. Three bloody legends.
Healthy ?? He looked like he was having an aneurysm. The content was fascinating (from what I've seen) but I don't this is his most composed or relaxed state
This is the super bowl of public intellectuals
I've been thanking God for a lot of things lately. This being free to watch... Thank God for that
I think Peterson’s frustration about questions of the sort “did a virgin gave birth to Jesus ..”
comes from the place that he really wants to believe in the scripture , yet stays agnostic at the core.
I respect him very much, I just wish for him to make the final leap
I think He doesn't actually believe there is a meaningful difference in believing in the story, or that it may have been a real event.
I actually came to the realization recently that he does this so that he can speak outside of the confines of being a Christian, as a Christian myself, it would be very hard for him to have these conversations if he was known to be a Christian, because how then could he argue from a perspective of intellectual curiosity rather than religious revelation. For example if Dawkins asked him “did Cain and Abel really exist?” He would either have to give a heretical response, or give the Christian answer and people like Dawkins would dismiss him, because they often dismiss metaphysics as a whole.
I disagree. I think it is just that the literalists approach is awfully boring and lead to a quick dead end. It is shallow and, as Jordan says, silly questions.
And I agree. I've not finished listening to this video, but Dawkins so far has been awfully dense and frustratingly slow in helping to move the conversation forward. I wonder if Dawkins when reading a book, instead of caring for the story, analyses de colours, spacing and shapes of the letters.
Also he doesn't want to turn off atheist audience, you would want them to stay and listen too, no?
JBP appears to be playing both sides. Like a charlatan would do. Dawkins has principle based on reason.
It’s so disconcerting putting so many ads on a discussion like this 😂
This is why JP is easily the greatest intellectual of our generation. No close second. Who else can reach across the aisle and have productive conversations to this extent? I don't care if you strongly disagree with JP, you have to give the man his flowers.
I hope that any serieus professor is able to have a productive conversation with the other side.
Thats like the bare minimum haha
He was in great form here, wasn't he ? I feel uplifted when I listen to JBP, as well as enlightened and informed. Two men here whose minds are not on the same wavelength but were finding some slightly more common ground near the end.
Dude Jordan is miles above the others it’s clear
@CaptainSurfy Jordans mind is much more erratic then Dawkins. Dont confuse that with genius.
@@StopmotionStudios13 They are very hard to find these days. No one does it like JP. He even talks to thought leaders in almost every discipline. No one has gone as far as him in this pursuit. His YT channel is basically an intellectually diverse library.
Dr. Peterson’s intellect is light years ahead of Dawkin’s
I couldn’t agree more, Dawkins has nothing new to bring or say.
I don’t think that’s fair. Dawkins is a smart man. He’s just ideological.
It is good and remarkable how much Alex O'Connor has ascended and has respect by pure virtue of intellectual honesty
I find it funny how Peterson immediately converts into a French postmodernist philosopher when asked direct questions about his favorite structure of belief
Yet goes full on Jesus freak when hanging out with religious right wingers. Definitely a chameleon concerned with maintaining his fanbase.
27:13 When you get rejected on the 3rd date but need to make it sound classy.
Peterson best channel on TH-cam rn
Right before I was going to bed. Thanks. Haha.
go to sleep plz
Listen to it while you sleep
@@tylere.8436 gay
Great admiration for all parties involved in this discussion. It was amusing that, around the 42 minute mark, Dawkins began, in a way, mythologizing to subordinate the exercise of mythology. What I mean by that is this: he recounted the age of the earth, history of life, the trajectory of scientific conquest and discovery - not as dispassionate data, but he imbued the data with implicit metanarrative by virtue of his delivery. That counts as mythology, in a broader sense.
Alex thanks for taking part in this, I thought you did a phenomenal job Mediating
One of the most direct and profound statements that I have read from Jordan Peterson -- which underpins his entire thesis -- went something like this: "You can think of the world as a place of facts. You can also think of the world as a place in which to act." For me, this largely summarizes the entire space between the perspective of a Dawkins and that of Peterson. To say that religion is, historically speaking, the investigation of how to act, whereas science is the exploration of facts. Human beings HAD to figure out how to act before they figured out what was empirically "fact" is a difficult statement to challenge.
Early in the interview, Dawkins says he doesn't care about symbols or myths, he's "interested in facts." I think the question there is -- What do you mean you don't care? You might be more intrigued and more interested in the facts of the matter, as it were... but the way you carry yourself is almost certainly so deeply routed in a perspective formed by millennia of human beings who were, at the time, learning how to act much more so than they were analyzing "facts."
Great to have this conversation, and Alex O'Connor was a welcome moderator.
I’m so happy you got to have this time with Dr. Dawkins, dearest Dr. Peterson, I know how long you have been looking forward to it and how much you have worked to prepare for it. I was just thinking how well you look, your color is so good and your eyes are so bright and full of light, and I hope that you are feeling as well as you are looking. It looks to me that you thrived on this conversation and that is so much what I wanted for you. I can’t tell you how much.
Here is a gentle hug
And Ruth Anne’s love ❤
Dawkins is drunk on facts
He's so insufferable .. I admire strong intellects, and even strong characters. But lack of humility or openness to other's opinion is not right. And actually antithetical to the nature of 'good science'
@@samyakjain727he's a bore
Facts matter.
@@pixieseyz Facts generated by who?
Thanks to all the DW team that made that happen
I’m here for both..all three actually…to me, and I’m nobody but Peterson continually dodges the questions with answers I think most people don’t understand which gives him a pass..I’ll listen but always skeptical when he has conversations with “the atheist type”..both are smarter than me. Thanks to all three
Man of Science, Man of Faith.
Two men of faith. Both using science.
@andrewdurand3181 Nope. Dawkins whole thing is basing arguments on science without faith.
Jordan tries to combine them.
His comment is fair.
@StopmotionStudios13 His faith is in scien(tism).
Whoever chose Alex as the mediator knows what he is doing. Congratulations I believe he is the perfect candidate.
I think he chose himself haha and proposed the idea to both of them
Wow this is big. Thank you all 3 of you for doing this. 3 of my favourite thinkers/ commentators, in conversation.
HUGE props and congratulations to Alex for putting himself into a position to be able to participate in and moderate a discussion between these two geniuses. As someone who is very close to Alex in age, I've gotta say that this is a huge inspiration to me. Well done all around.
This may be the most important and needed conversation in our lifetime. I would hope to see it continue into more areas of the different perspective. I'm no fan of Dawkins, nor am I impressed by him. But I am grateful for this conversation