Jordan Peterson, Dawkins, and Maher Wrestle With God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- Dr. Craig evaluates excerpts of Jordan Peterson being interviewed by two famous atheists.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Maher is just out of his element every time I see him trying to talk about theology. He really has a less-than-elementary understanding of theology but thinks he is really smart about it, he embodies the Dunning-Kruger effect to the max.
Like many, you, too, misunderstand the Dunning-Kruger effect. David Dunning said that the "Effect" considers only self-examination, not judgment of others. "The Dunning-Kruger effect is usually measured by comparing self-assessment with objective performance. "
@ cool, Maher still falls into that category. The Dunning-Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability. His self assessment of his knowledge in theology is highly limited, he doesn’t understand the studies of current academics in the field nor does he understand that the majority of his criticisms have been rejected and refuted by academic philosophers both Christian and non Christian. So I hold to my original statement. He lacks the metacognitive ability to recognize his own incompetence.
Craig believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus, Peterson believes in the utility of the story and Dawkins isn't impressed by either.
Well said
Jordan was pressed by Alex O'Connor who asked him something along the lines of if there was a video-camera at the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, would the camera have shown someone walking out of the tomb. And Jordan said, I suppose so, yes.
@@tylerdunford6031 And he ended it with "I don't know what that means and neither did the disciples", thereby obscuring his statement. That segment was ridiculous.
I thought Dawkins said he was impressed by the utility of it when he said he was a "cultural Christian" and basically didn't want to imagine a world without Christianity. In this interview he seems to have changed his mind, but it sounded sincere when he said it the first time.
@@tacsmith I think I've heard Dawkins say that as well, but I'm not sure if he has consistently maintained that perspective.
Hawkins seems to be attacking arguments that Peterson isn't actually making. Hawkins is concerned about the historicity of Biblical stories - which can be argued persuasively - while Peterson is concerned about the meaning of those stories.
Alex is making a category error. His question about a scientific argument for morality is like asking for a medical solution to the question of whether the Mona Lisa is a beautiful art piece. Alex's question also takes it for granted that God hasn't spoken through science in a manner (though not by science - i.e., the scientific method, which can't answer metaphysical questions) that can't be scientifically discerned. Further, the question seems to take it for granted that God MUST speak to the scientifically inclined by science - as if there are no persons who are scientifically inclined to whom God hasn't spoken. Lastly the question seems to take it for granted that God MUST speak to a persons by his or her most preferred manner, even though God's speach is discenable to such persons by other means.
All of this brings to mind Paul's statement in Romans 1, "God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse", and Abrahams retort to the rich man in Luke 16, "if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."
It's all a heart issue, so pray for Alex, Dawkins, and all who have yet to see the light, this Christmas season.
Hawkins died a long time ago
@viktordoe1636 You're wrong too: you mean "Hawking", not "Hawkins". I meant "Dawkins", not "Hawkins."
Two things can be true. I believe there was a literal Cain and Abel, and Abel's death played out how it was written. It doesn't have hyperbole or symbology typically associated with a parable, and giving them both names in the account, plus referring to them multiple times later by those names in the Bible as if they were real people, leads me to believe it was two literal brothers.
Second, Cain and Abel can be included in Genesis as a morality tale, and full of morality play types to get a point acrost.
To be fair to Dawkins, for whom philosophically I have very little respect, he was trying to get Peterson to lay his cards on the table so he could engage with them. I don't think Dawkins sees no value in the story if it were just an allegory, he was trying to define terms.
He reads a statement referring to Cain and Abel as the first humans to be born, which is clearly in that context to be taken as a statement descriptive of the story, like "Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson shared lodgings at 221b Baker Street" and says that statement "gives the game away" in showing Peterson is pretending to believe the stories as historical. Clearly anyone describing a story makes those statements all the time. And Peterson is very clear here and elsewhere in saying that the story of Cain and Abel may be originally from a story of two brothers, but the story doesn't have enough details for us to investigate it historically.
@@mattm7798 Peterson seems out of his depth when discussing Christianity, which is true for all non believers.It's a shame there wasn't someone there who KNEW the facts without reservation from a Christian perspective.
I pray Peterson meets God - and Dawkins too - in this life, before it is in some way too late.
God alone knows everything.
We must wake up to this and show total trust.
Dawkins tends to see very little value in things that don't immediately entertain him or give him immediate knowledge of the physical world.
@@jellophant9716 Well said. It's interesting that Dawkins see's the result of atheism and other religions' influence on society, and has stated(paraphrased) that he would prefer to live in a western style Christian country.
So he wants the benefits of objective morality without being accountable to anyone.
@@mattm7798 Yes. He also wants beauty without the meaning behind it.
The reoccurring problem I tend to have with Jordan Petersons debates that makes it frustrating for someone like me to listen to him sometimes is that I grew up with Christian families who took those stories literally. So that being the primary perspective I faced when I deconverted, it’s frustrating that he seems to sidestep that there are a LOT of people who takes the holly book very literally.
It is what happens when you put a psychologist and a biologist together to talk about a subject they both do not believe in a language they do not speak.
At least Dawkins can clearly say he doesn't believe in it. Peterson leaves it open to what extent he is like a general "Christian"
@@11kravitznwhy is that upsetting?
@@Artiscetic Why is he such a weasely coward? He's 60 years old and can't decide if he thinks God the Trinity exists or not, and say it plainly? If he's an agnostic, why can't he say THAT? JP is clearly hiding something. He purposefully dances around the topic with obfuscation and ambiguity because he does believe in some sort of theology, just not Christian theology. He can't alienate his base of mostly Christians, so he has to be a slimy coward about it.
(ToT) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
26:19 Though Atheists use the “God of the Gaps” as a pejorative, We do worship a God who intentionally ordained the Words written in Scripture AND the spaces and Words not mentioned in Scripture. Reminds me of the quote “God left enough evidence for those that will believe in Him, and didn’t leave enough for those who won’t”. Though I am not a Calvinist and believe the free gift of salvation is offered to everyone, God is Lord above All including the gaps.
I'm confused. Does Craig want us to treat the bible as fiction? If the bible should be considered as fact, why would Craig make the point that Dawkins lacks the capacity to appreciate fiction?
This would be a misunderstanding of Dr. Craig. The Bible is composed of various texts of various genres, writing styles, and purposes. Some sections, like the creation texts, are plausibly of the genre "mytho-history," which just means that they relate various truths through mythology (much of which is meant to be taken figuratively rather than literalistically). However, there are other texts which are written with greater literalness in mind, such as the Gospels and Acts.
Dr. Craig's point to Dawkins is that figurative language which evokes the imagination is often more effective in communicating complex truths and therefore may have been intended by God to be part of the Bible as a way of teaching more people important lessons.
Imagine that the Bible was written like a highly technical book on quantum physics, the comprehension of which would require at least 30 years of intense study in a variety of fields. Would that be an effective way of teaching people the truths which are vital for salvation and godly living? Hopefully you can agree that it would not. - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg the question was specifically about the existence of Cain, not about whether the bible is a mix of myth and history. Was Cain a historical figure, yes or no? Jordan dances around the question and Craig comments that Dawkins should be more appreciative of figurative literature? So nobody answers the question.
Was Cain a real person or not? Why can't the question get a straight answer?
@@unkerpaulieAs Peterson said, it's compressed history. Is compressed history "real" ? Yeah, in the way Peterson jist explained. It's not complicated, if we stop presupposing a modernist nominalist notion of real.
@@jbsweeney1077 gotcha. We can assume that what ancient people meant by "it really happened" is not what we mean by that today, right?
When Dawkins says that he cares about 'facts', what does he mean by 'facts'? Wouldn't we want to consider the idea that 'pain' is one of the most real thing in this world as fact?
I'm sorry, but as a conservative and a Christian, I have to side with Dawkins here. Either the events in the Bible really happened or they didn't, and the truth of the Bible is more important than anything anyone "as a clinician" can ever say about the supposedly "deeper meaning" of the text. Alex O'Connor brilliantly exposed Peterson's game in his video *Deconstructing Jordan Peterson on Religion.*
_Maybe_ Peterson is moving towards theism, as you say (hope?), but as long as he plays these word games and refuses to give clear answers to simple questions I have no use for him. Peterson will clutch his forehead, let his voice crack dramatically, maybe squeeze out a few tears, and talk circles around every comma, but he will not answer the question.
At the end of *The Oracle of the Dog* GKC could almost have been writing directly to Peterson: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can't see things as they are. Anything that anybody talks about, and says there's a good deal in it, extends itself indefinitely like a vista in a nightmare. And a dog is an omen, and a cat is a mystery, and a pig is a mascot and a beetle is a scarab, calling up all the menagerie of polytheism from Egypt and old India; Dog Anubis and great green-eyed Pasht and all the holy howling Bulls of Bashan; reeling back to the bestial gods of the beginning, escaping into elephants and snakes and crocodiles; and all because you are frightened of four words: 'He was made Man'."
Agreed!
@@MeganDelacroix I do like Peterson in general, I liked his book on 12 rules, but I think he's weak on his apologetics or critical reasoning on this.
Agreed 👍
@@MeganDelacroix Conservative Christians SHOULD be concerned about Peterson's approach to the Bible. A "psychological" approach to interpreting the Bible is a SUBJECTIVE approach without regard to the original, historical meaning of the Bible. Though I am not a conservative Christian myself, I think you are correctly identifying a problem with Dr. Craig's endorsement of Peterson as it relates to conservative Christianity.
If you are a conservative and a Christian you should be open to interpreting the text in a way that is in line with at least the Christian Scholars of late antiquity like Origen. Many ancient texts are not meant to be read with a literal interpretation. Look into the Christian intellectual tradition and Dr. Peterson's analysis will not look so foreign anymore.
At least Dawkins takes the truth claims of Christianity seriously enough to think that they are worth denouncing.
Peterson refuses to even acknowledge that there is any aspect to religion beyond the psychoanalytical.
Wait Dr. Craig doesn’t affirm that God is immutable and timeless? That’s something I haven’t heard him say before.
The “God and Time” article at the reasonable faith website should help clarify. Quoting from it: “God exists timelessly sans creation and temporally since the moment of creation.”
24:00 Love amd Grace is our auto correct per Jesus summing up the Torah with the 2
Dr Peterson needs to just look at Dr Dawkins and tell him plainly that he does not care if Cain ever existed and that his (Dawkins’) concerns about the facts are completely irrelevant to his (Peterson’s) work.
Unto all who have an ear let them hear!
I was trained by God, given the truth , people can't know whats goin on
Three of the world's leading narcissists together in one place. Get Dr. Phil involved and you will have a grand slam.
( ´_ゝ`) Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG WOULD NEVER DEBATE ALEX O' CONNOR.
He has. There’s a video of it and Alex admitted that he didn’t frustrate any of William’s stances.
Would Mankind really be better off if Moses had said “Oh, by the way, E =MC2”?
@20:20: I like Bill Maher but he’s dead wrong here. A recent survey came out that catalogued all the wars that have occurred in human history and the reasons they were fought.
Over 90% were fought for secular reasons, and the religious remainder were almost all Islamic wars. In fact, if you remove Islam as the cause of all the religious wars fought, the number drops to @3%.
Maher is simply repeating a skeptics talking point here.
@22:50: Is he kidding? “Religion can’t self-correct”?!
Judaism and Christianity have _both_ been reformed. Only Islam has not (and desperately needs to).
It’s not wrestling with God, they’re wrestling with themselves. They won’t get out of their own ways.
@@jayv3264 I think it's just a play on words: wrestling with god conceptually (as is, "is there a god") vs. wrestling with God as Jacob did, imploring God to bless him.
@ good story in the Bible. I get it. It’s a turn of phrase, but the point still stands.
@@jayv3264 Just pray for them. They're clearly lost. We ourselves, were once foolish, disobedient, led astray...
The math of the morphology of the brain is has a beginning and end and is simultaneously infinite and finite.
The math God uses to create is a description of God.
Wait, God isn’t timeless? Maybe I don’t understand what it means to be timeless. I thought that that term meant that God has no beginning or end. Can someone help me here, please? Thanks 🙏
The term ‘god’ has been used to describe ‘The gods’ that caused thunder, rain, love, violence’ (Ancient Greek theology); the term has also been used to describe Viking gods. When understanding (science) determined the actual cause of earthly events, these ‘gods’ were no longer necessary. A monotheistic culture came after, used to explain earthly events. As these events were better understood, the population became more secular or agnostic. The presence of a higher power, god, guiding hand has never been disproven or proven. We simply have the ‘unknown’.
//Wait, God isn’t timeless? Maybe I don’t understand what it means to be timeless. I thought that that term meant that God has no beginning or end. Can someone help me here, please? Thanks 🙏//
A timeless state of affairs is one in which there is no change, no ordering of events by past, present, or future, no earlier-than or later-than. God can be in time and still have no beginning or end. Dr. Craig's view is that God was timeless and then stepped into time at the moment of creation. This makes sense of God's going from "not having created" to "having created." It's also difficult to see how God could remain omniscient if he is still timeless, since he would not know temporal truths, like "It is now x o'clock." - RF Admin
( ＞Д＜；) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work
"I care about facts" says Dawkins.
No he doesn't. the vast majority of facts are irrelevant. So what determines relevance?
20:00 alexrod in the history of war demonstrates the number of wars religion played a hand is has been less than 7%
There is zero basis for that number of course. In fact Christians went from dying for Jesus to killing for Jesus in a little less than 150 years.
But what about Job? When the bible tells us earth is circular and ia suspended in the void. Will dawkina appreciate that? Also please get on JP podcast!
Dr. Peterson's Jungian hermeneutic = the automatic validation of one's subjective interpretation of the Bible, divorced from its historical context. If a "liberal" was saying the same things as Peterson, Dr. Craig would want no part in it. Of course, because Peterson is associated with the conservative side of today's culture wars, Dr. Craig is happy to feature Peterson. Christianity has devolved into a language for political tribalism.
As a conservative, I hope you're wrong, but I reluctantly have to admit that you may not be.
Funny enough, I am not a conservative Christian, so I am personally not opposed to what Jordan Peterson is doing. However, my point is that Peterson's approach to the Bible is subjective and CONTRARY to historic conservative Christianity. Dr. Craig only signs off on it because Peterson is on Dr. Craig's same "culture wars" team. Conservative Christians should be cautious about Jordan Peterson's influence because it can backfire in the future.
I think the distinction is that Peterson is not excluding the literal/historical truth of the events in the Bible. His psychological/literary analysisis neutral towards the historical truth of scripture. Where as liberal theologians rule out that historical truth
@ Not so sure about that... I believe he refers to the Bible as "the landscape of the fictional" in his new book, though I will need to go back and double check that. I think the way he responds to Dawkins has more to do with an awareness that his audience is mostly conservative Christians, so he doesn't want to alienate them by making it clear he sees the biblical stories as important fictions.
While I see this is true to some extent, I think the fact that his interpretations and opinions on Christianity are positive and do not denounce the truth or historicity means his contributions are a net positive.
Especially considering many people have come to believe or befriend Christianity despite not having the predisposition before Peterson. It’s almost like a CS Lewis effect…albeit less orthodox and somewhat misguided
Maher who’s the real Hod didn’t cause WW1, WW2, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, the War in Iraq… what is Maher talking about out?
18:00 how about The Jews are the clearest case of selective breeding or artificial selection in the struggle and perseverance of Life?
The Jews are Darwin's selective breeding pets which demonstrates evolution and LIFE (which 'god' is )
( ；∀；) The human body is burly, gnarly and surly like a fractal.
WILLIAM LANE CRAIG NEEDS TO HAVE A LONG FORM INTERVIEW JORDAN PETERSON! that is something we all want to see.....
Listening atheist talking and reasoning is really boring. So dry and plain.
People always have to blame someone else for the problems they create. Anybody that lived two thousand years ago isn't responsible for the problems we create today. How much money do they pay these people to sit around and talk about such pointless shit.
how would you respond to this accusation by someone who once believed in God, but has been disillusioned by the chaos of modern Christianity?
th-cam.com/video/nLTGULHVEqo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=dByt60L56doIFUrd
Students will say, LORD where increased belongs? Students ĺonging to learn! To deprived many holding don't belongs holding! To take! Angels who persevere will say, remember our LORD thy LORD WILL NOT SHARE HIS GLORY TO ANYONE! SPECIALLY, a BASKET fed thee! Indeed, not asking for return for a reason?
Compromise
4:07 very intellectually dishonest lmao
The Bible is written by god and we need to live by these rules of we go to hell
Dawkins knows wtf Shakespeare is lol what a dumb thing to say
He may know what Shakespeare is, but, following his logic, when someone says "Romeo and Juliet were born in two warring families in Verona," one is giving the game away and pretending to believe Romeo and Juliet are historical people.
Stephen Fry has written whole books retelling Greek myths in which he makes similar statements, I wait for Dawkins to accuse Stephen Fry of pretending to believe in the historicity of Greek mythology.
Science can be an idol, and I don't think the purpose of the Bible is to make God's existence undeniable to everyone. This would limit free will in a reality where there is good and evil and where we are being allowed to place ourselves above God.
That’s a common objection, but it doesn’t hold up. Surely, you would agree that Satan and his demons are made fully aware of the existence of God and reject Him nonetheless. Dawkins himself admitted that he would not believe it if God appeared directly to him (though I can’t recall when). So what would be the harm in revealing Himself if it could save so many people?
@ I guess if God made Himself completely obvious everyone would act accordingly and limit their actions and behaviour. Maybe our reality is designed to allow free choices without obvious consequences from God or consequences that can be completely ignored.
@@MarkPatmos What’s the point of creating people who are destined to go to Hell and are never warned about it? Again, free will is not an issue since knowledge of God only frees those who would have accepted and exposes those who are too stubborn to be saved. And God Himself is the judge in the end, so ultimately He will know if people are faking it.
Your objection boils down to “maybe it could work”. Sure, I suppose a supernatural being can do anything you need Him to if you want to support a narrative. But is it consistent with His character? Does it actually make sense?
@ Adam and Eve choose to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in a paradise God created. Maybe we all are being given knowledge of good and evil in a fallen world, and can make choices as though God doesn’t exist. It may be both a test as well as a form of preparation, a reality that allows for sin, false idols, and also to turn towards God. Our reality may be specifically designed to allow for good and evil, maybe even those who go to heaven might benefit from knowledge of good and evil first and knowledge about themselves in a reality with suffering.
@@MarkPatmos I think you’re now starting to dip into the Problem of Evil as well. Let me separate your arguments for clarity:
1. Perhaps we lack knowledge of God as a test of our character in a fallen world.
2. Good and evil might exist to benefit those who go to Heaven, as opposed to just sending everyone there to begin with.
In response:
1. Perhaps we lack knowledge of fairies as a test of our character in a fallen world. We’re getting into Pascal’s Wager territory here. If this is a test, then what supernatural entity are we supposed to believe in to succeed? Cultures around the world come to different answers, indicating that we don’t have enough information to make a fair decision. That’s problematic given the consequences.
2. Consider a friend who’s not a believer. Would you rather:
a. Both you and your friend go to Heaven from the day you were born.
b. You go to Heaven with some knowledge of evil, while your friend is punished eternally in Hell.
I hope you can understand that a superficial benefit for you does not outweigh the harm caused to most of the population. I’d encourage you to think about this for a bit. Is this system really just?
*Dr. Craig* can you PLEASE interview Jordan Peterson? He claims to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, while repenting for his sins. He seems to have a problem with “churchianity” rather than Christianity. I know of very few people who take the Word of God as seriously as Peterson does. He does however take a more Catholic view (given his background in behaviorism). For a man who eats nothing but meat, there are still areas in Scripture in which he is still drinking milk. A conversation between you both would be very enlightening in challenging his over-emphasized view on human behavior and salvation (much like Judaism) rather than Christ atonement, in paying our debt. Living a life of obedience out of love and surrender to Christ in denying ourselves rather than being obedience for the sake of self-righteousness.
( *´・ω)/(；д； ) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.
( ノД`)… Jesus won't return unless he is certain that we can do what he can't do. It's as simple as that.
( ω-、) Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is "integrity is more important than life "otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
No fictional literature such as Shakespear's plays Mark Twain's books, Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, Aesop's Fables, etc. represents itself as being based on historical "facts". But most ardent adherents of the Bible (such as William L Craig) do consider most of the Bible historically accurate. But even Craig seems to find it perfectly acceptable to bend this contention (Bible historical accuracy) where it is convenient.
To understand some parts of the Bible as "non-historical accounts" (which were included in order to provide some sort of moral lesson, etc.) weakens other Biblical accounts which are understood by the devout to represent rock-solid historical facts.
Having it both ways does have its downside, IMO.
I think you are all lost - Cain and Abel absolutely existed.
How do you know? After all, the creation story and introduction of Adam and Eve don’t align at all with our current knowledge of history and genetics. We can describe events that were happening at human history when the Earth was supposedly created.
If you read Genesis with some knowledge of the ancient Middle Eastern understanding of the world, it makes a lot more sense. There are certain tropes that appear in Babylonian mythology that are repeated here.
They saw the Earth as a flat disk where pillars supported the a firmament holding back the sky. The gods lived above it, bringing weather and occasionally coming down to Earth. That’s why God caused a flood with rain and why the heavens were reachable with a tall tower. Read Job 38-39 for more info.
@seanpierce9386 Not so. Our correct knowledge of History and Genetics points perfectly to the OT geneologies - and the Babylonian scriptures do nothing but undergird the factual Holy Scripture of Genesis.
The Bible is sheer fact - history - packaged in a remarkable series of books throughout the 6500 years since the Creation of Life - all written by the Holy Spirit according to God's command.
Christ is absolute Truth, being God incarnate - the victory over the death of Man (since the fall of Adam) and the return of the flock to Eternity is th Historic fact of what has and will transpire - all wrapped into a library of books known as the Bible - the only book to begin before Time and end after the obliteration of this world - and the birth of the New Kingdom for the select few who desire it, and with utmost faith, follow.
Thousands of the greatest minds that have ever lived on Earth have put their trust in Christ - and there is nothing that the man of this world can ever do about it.
God is all powerful and His ways are cleay miraculous.
Newton put it well, "if ever a man questions if God exists he need only look athis thumb".
This life is far too miraculous for human understanding. God knows - He gave you life and he sustains it all, so have respect and show the simple trust, faith and hope in Him to lead you home and to deny the evil one - satan - who, as Christ told us, is "God lf this world" and the controller of far too many fallen men who believe in Man (satan) and are dirrcted awayy from Truth.
The Bible is FACT.
It leads you Home (where you are not yet) -
All other facts are either subservient to it and acceptable to God - or are lies.
God Bless
Jordan Peterson is a baby Christian going against an atheist giant.
Dawkins with all other Atheists are wrong. I know the 3 authors of Genesis. I am Christian Apologetic.
Nothing to wrestle with
*Imaginary friends are for children*