When I discuss religion with aethists I jokingly imitate them by saying about myself "silly primitive worshipping the magic man in the sky" to ease tensions, usually works
The entire tension between atheists and theists is overshadowed by the inability to reconcile that neither knows what the other thinks, with what they fear that thought would have as consequences if it was implemented into their own thoughts.
The entire tension between atheists and theists is overshadowed by the inability to reconcile that neither knows what the other thinks, with what they fear that thought would have as consequences if it was implemented into their own thoughts.
Dawkins hardly disagreed at all he just kept asking “so, what?!” Which is a very good question. So, what? What if the Bible has lots of wisdom in it? What is the next stage?
Dr Peterson was extanding his arm for a dance arount weither bible is scientifically true, Richard was like 'I get your point, there must be there a deep psychological need there, definetly, but ? is is true ? was Jesus born from a virgin really or not ? ' ... so folding his arms isn't really the description of what Dawkins was doing, he did not want to to dance same dance as Peterson, because Peterson don't want to admit he's an atheist with admiration to Christain mythology
I had goosebumps the whole way through. Weinstein almost effortlessly bridges the gap between Peterson and Dawkins without missing a beat, or denigrating either. Truly an 'eyes wide open' scientist.
This was amazing- I feel like I’m back in 2018. I recall the partial recording of the Weinstein/Dawkins discussion. Dawkins was exasperated & the recording doesn’t show the “extended phenotype” portion. But the Dawkins fans were nasty to Weinstein-labeled him a charlatan pop-scientist. This cadre is now the atrophied & backwards ideologues. But Dawkins can’t be too upset, he carried the torch 5 decades ago and others have picked it up. I love the idea of a new “kosher” law against seed oils etc. this is great.
I love Bret, but his idea that ancient solutions are insufficient for modern problems while using Jewish dietary laws as an example just shows that he misunderstands the ancient problem. The problem wasn't health.
My favourite Crossover is Theoretical Physicists and Theologians, they literally speak the same language and use the same philosophical terms (and have had a ton of fruitful conversations). I don't think Dawkins even realizes that the modern Scientific Method came out of Christianity (and Francis Bacon himself spoke about the unknowability problem of empiricism). The fundamental philosophical presuppositions of Science are ultimately Christian ones (and historically 95% of Scientists were Christians), the more Science strays away from Christianity the worse it gets, because if you try to destroy Christianity you destroy Science in the process, this is why so many Atheists say that they 'hate philosophy' or that 'philosophy is useless', because it would force them to confront their worldview on a presuppositional level.
Yes religion and science are two fractals or operating systems in which to simply describe the reality we are observing. Aquinas also a brilliant mind dealt with apologetics. science and religion are not mutually exclusive it's just the mind and ego that prevent atheists from realizing their perspective is just one node in a universe of endless consciousness
Modern science came about in the 1600s, almost 1600 years after Christianity was created… and early scientists were vilified by the church. It was the separation of church and state and the adoption of religion as a personal pursuit that allowed modern science to even take route. Just because cave people created fire, doesn’t mean cave people have some profound understanding of fire and its modern utility…
All of current human knowledge comes out of previous ideas, including religion. Atheist don’t think that religion was not useful to organize societies, distribute moral lessons, establish countries, etc. atheist just believe that religion and god is not real, but humans have flourished believing in useful fictions like Harari has written in Sapiens. That doesn’t mean that you still need to believe in things that were needed in the past.
Some people think "god exists because god's lessons are helpful", this line of reasoning is incorrect for the same reason atheists who think "god doesn't exist therefore his lessons are bad" are wrong. Peterson is an expert on moral truths. This is why Peterson deflects when asked a literal question like "does God exists" by responding with a moral answer like "I act as if god exists." Dawkins is an expert on literal truths. Bret Weinstein, out of these three thinkers, is the only one who can saliently distinguish the difference between literal truth and moral truth, and understand that they have a relationship that isn't as simple as "truth = moral good." The usefulness of religions is logical evidence that the religious depiction of god is not literal truth. If religion is an extended phenotype, it makes sense why religious rules would have stakes in our personal fulfillment and societal stability, because it's an extension of ourselves and would be naturally selected if it had bad rules. It doesn't make sense why a being far greater than us would care enough to make these rules. A parent analogy doesn't work since we do have evolutionary explanations for why parents care about their offspring. This is an example of materialist atheism having more answers than religion, but unfortunately old school atheists like Dawkins won't adopt this point since he would have to concede that religious doctrine isn't a net negative to society.
The "comments on what the programmer meant" is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. What do you mean it doesn't exist? That's exactly what the Magisterium has been doing for 2000 years.
@@yeshuadvargas5552 kids will worship the IQ of secular modernist reductionist. When IQ is immaterial. The measure is wisdom therefore I read Aquinas and Augustine. I wonder if these two have
Peterson does not speak clearly, if he would just say myths capture important truths about human nature, it would solve the problem. Instead he answers the question of “did the Exodus happen” with “yes, it’s always happening” or “I can’t say.” There are other scholars of myth that don’t have this problem.
It’s probably your problem that you don’t understand the subtleness of arguments. This is the problem is that you need lateral thinking it’s not always literal literal. The world is not literal.
The real question will be, is there a difference in believing in God, acting like you believe God exists, and believing and acting out that belief that God exists? If there is, and one of these proves to stand above the others, it's worth asking why.
The problem with this perspective is that the old timeless ideas that may be outdated aren't conscious things that can be inscribed and proscribed like software notes. Humans are incredible at pattern recognition, but not consciously. For example, if you generate random strings of words using two random algorithms, people can group the words accurately well above chance. The real problem is that when you tell them that there's a pattern and that they should look for the pattern, THEY GET WORSE AT IDENTIFYING THE PATTERN.
"The real problem is that when you tell them that there's a pattern and that they should look for the pattern, THEY GET WORSE AT IDENTIFYING THE PATTERN." That's not a hundred percent accurate if you're referring to the Peter Brugger study I think you are. They gradually eliminated the pattern, and the searchers kept finding the pattern even when it wasn't present, which is why everyone thinks racism is everywhere today, because its actually so close to eliminated we are generating false positives because everyone is primed to look for it.
But it's hard to say if getting worse is just a natural process of shifting from an intuitive function to a sensing one. Where when shifting to the sensing one, you may initially be worse at recognizing, but as you improve your analysis will be more accurate. Where intuition is like a net, and sensing is like a harpoon. The problem with the net is you necessarily reel in things that need not be, and the harpoon has a higher chance of missing the mark. When switching to a harpoon you will miss more, but you will also get better at using the harpoon over time. This is to say that there is no saying whether getting worse at identifying the pattern is permeant loss of accuracy or temporary.
It's very doubtful that man has really changed. It that the old is outdated. 3000 year old proverbs still hold true for example. Which could not be true if we had changed. Same with the old archetype.stories.
Ad. 17:04 - I think the advantage of a metaphor (like in religious books) is the fact that it can be generalised and used universally across different subdomains of human experience. I get Weinstein's counterargument against Peterson and subscribe to it partly; but precisely the fact that a religion can sufficiently translate the general idea of something being not good for you (through story, metaphor etc.) without going into specifics is what makes it long-lasting. Most of christianity doesn't place specifics above the greater derived meaning that they hold; those specifics are merely props to hold the story/lesson/meaning. That's why you have interpreters of religion; that's the relationship that they're trying to untagle, rightly so. Kocher rules seem to be a bit of a bad example because they're hyper-specific, but there's tons of more general ideas e.g. about how a 'sin' works and what constitutes a sin that a smarter person can distil a greater general meaning from the overspecific nonsense which is inherently contained in every religious text ever. That's the most vital value of any religious text for an atheist; if you start to actually analyse the text and take it seriously as a whole in the first place, then you'll have no problem with distinguishing the irrelevant specifics of the time from general greater truths that absolutely do apply to humanity as a whole to this day. That's what your relationship with these texts should be like. Sure, you can dismiss the whole enterprise spanning hundreds/ thousands of years in one sentence like Dawkins loves to do, just know that you'll be deemed a bit ignorant in the eyes of those who actually swallowed their pride and dug deeper.
Peterson is a charlatan there are lots of great Philosophers who aspire to and recommend different mystical and deeply spiritual experiences. These internet buffoons are grifting. Read Critchlys book on Mysticism or Being and Time. These are genuine ways into this otherly realm which these guys don't offer they just chat shit and make a shit tonne of money for doing it
I'm an atheist who discovered this truth several years ago. The Bible may have some irrelevant specifics, but it's not speaking in specifics, it's speaking in metaphorical generalities that are more accurate, more complete, and more resonant with reality than the entire post-enlightenment philosophical enterprise, which is still fumbling in the dark because secular humanism is myopic, dismisses the world of memetics (spirit) and is therefore devoid of moral content. Modern psychotherapy has started performing RELIGIOUS EXORCISMS again, they just call them EMDR and changed the words around: "trauma" for "demon", and so on, to appeal to the modern materialist belief paradigm.
Exactly. I mean I think there's an immense amount of value in modern psychotherapy, philosophy etc., Peterson thinks so too btw, I just don't trust anyone who dismisses the Bible as a whole based on mere minutiae and believes that it should be erradicated and replaced by what happened in those fields in the last few decades.
If you think the ancient wisdom of the Bible is not "up-to-date with modern problems," you never really read the Bible. All the problems there are today are there they're just in different forms.
The first thing God makes man do in Genesis 2:15 is to take care of the earth. That pretty much tells you everything. We are to take care of the earth and the animals that God created.
@@nicholascollins4907 So he want us to kill Earth and animals ? What does he say about animals rights exactly ? What rights should they have ? Are they on paar with humans and if they are , does that mean all non vegans are sinners ? If they are not why not ? What about animal pain ? can you please elaborate further with Bible texts ?
@@nicholascollins4907 Also what does the Bible say about CRISPR ? Should we use it to modify humans ? What if we can save the by doing so ? What about AI rights ? Should ai have rights if it will be able to feel pain in 100 years ? Pls elaborate with Bible texts.
If you think taking care of the earth means to kill the earth you’re not a serious person and not worth conversing with. I suggest you read the Bible for yourself. If you can’t see how there are underlying principles that can be applied universally then I can’t help you.
It’s not that Dawkins isn’t listening, it’s that he perceives a different niche of reality, the “down to earth” or experiential niche. He struggles with abstraction which is Peterson’s forte. Classic ISTJ v INFJ dynamic. Look up Carl Jung’s cognitive functions.
it’s ironic because Jesus is the literal Logos incarnate. there is no better pursuit of experiential truth than that of the christian walk. you want to know the truths of the appearent reality you live in? go no further than measuring your own personal experiences and Jesus Christ who literalkly reaches into your life and unsettlingly meets you where you’re at. ironic that the study of evolution and measurable sciences is far more abstract than Faith could ever be….
He's definitely listening. Dawkins is just talking about scientific reality; in a similar way a fundamentalist Christian would claim the Bible is the literal truth. While Peterson is talking about the benefit of metaphorical moral truths.
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” - Thomas Jefferson
Categorizing belief in God as “a being in the sky” is such a smug mischaracterization. We’re still playing ball with 2011 new-atheism “sky daddy” rhetoric? 😅
I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and was one for 27 years. Dawkin's reasoning is the perfect type to use with them, because they are EXTREMELY literal in their interpretations. They 100% believe that God is watching everyone, at all times; they believe that the flood of Noah was a very real thing that happened ~ 4000 years ago. They believe mankind is only ~ 6000 years old. They are exactly the kind of religious people who should be debated on that level.
@@chadparsons50 Some of them definitely do - I was one such person - but their interpretation of the Bible is an odd mix of extreme fundamentalism and broad symbolic interpretation.
@@Hreodrich When I lay down to sleep, sometimes I dream of a beautiful woman, but I never, ever dream of a cell-phone or computer. I may want to look at a beautiful woman and might, for various reasons, want to use a computer to simulate seeing a real woman, but there is simply no situation when I dream of the computer. The technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
excellent observation. autism is literally one of the biggest problems in the world now... literalist/"rationalist" thinking... lack of nuance or abstraction or flexibility...
An extended conversation about religion between Bret and Jordan every few months would do wonders to inspire the kind of modern "software update" Bret says is necessary. Dawkins is certainly not capable of listening and having those conversations, but Bret is.
Bret Weinstein is a serial liar and an embarrassment to science. He and his brother Eric both are such huge bushitters that several high-profile individuals have fallen for their scam. But once you learn how they operate, it gets easy to see what a waste of time any discussion with them is.
@@CramRockets - The Church used to believe the universe revolved around the Earth,. Christians have used the Bible to justify slavery and misogyny. So, interpretation updates are part of the Software updates, and that includes Science helping fill in gaps the Bible doesn't exactly spell out. Any such truth is a reflection of God and His Truth in Creation. ( When Christians preach that the Bible has "all the answers you need" it is partly true, and obviously also false. Not a scientific manual, though Genesis is a book that contains scientific information. )
Much like a real river, the water in the river doesn't flow "from" somewhere in a pure strict sense. Much of the water in a river is the result of hydrological forces that cause water to enter and leave the surrounding soil. Rivers tend to form from the seeping of aquifers into streams, which eventually converge as tributaries. Very few rivers spring directly from true springs, and just bubble out of the grounf
#1 Are morals objective? #2 Are there objective moral duties? #3 Is it immoral not to do an objective moral duty? #4 Does god do the objective moral duties? #5 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #6 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child? #7 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #8 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #9 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
@@macmac1022 #1 Morality is just as objective as mathematics. They are both branches of the same tree. #2 Yes, there are objective moral duties. Number one is we must struggle to survive, just like all life on Earth. #3 Yes, it is immoral not to do an objective moral duty. If we don't struggle to stay alive, we will not. #4 Yes, God has fulfilled his moral obligation. We exist as a result #5 No, that persons actions are not moral. If he can save the child, he should #6 Yes, I am saving the child #7 It is an act of justice to punish innocent people to stop an even greater evil from infecting the whole world with hate and violence #8 I would stop the child from being harmed #9 You read the text wrong. Apes came out of the trees perusing animals on the african plains, they ate mushrooms (not an apple) growing on the feces of the animals they were tracking, natural selection selected for apes with brains who could withstand the mind expanding outcomes. They were not poisoned, they were burdened with knowledge of the future and the moral obligation to respond accordingly. They died spiritually knowing they were inherently evil, and began wearing clothes to hide the shame of their genetically imposed sexual immorality. Those apes are your grandmama and grandpapa. The story is not fiction, it is an accurate depiction of the transition from animal to human, it is objective moral truth.
@@macmac1022 #1 Morality is just as objective as mathematics. They are both branches of the same tree. #2 Yes, there are objective moral duties. Number one is we must struggle to survive, just like all life on Earth. #3 Yes, it is immoral not to do an objective moral duty. If we don't struggle to stay alive, we will not. #4 Yes, God has fulfilled his moral obligation. We exist as a result #5 No, that persons actions are not moral. If he can save the child, he should #6 Yes, I am saving the child #7 It is an act of justice to punish innocent people to stop an even greater evil from infecting the whole world with hate and violence #8 I would stop the child from being harmed #9 You read the text wrong. Apes came out of the trees perusing animals on the african plains, they ate mushrooms (not an apple) growing on the feces of the animals they were tracking, natural selection selected for apes with brains who could withstand the mind expanding outcomes. They were not poisoned, they were burdened with knowledge of the future and the moral obligation to respond accordingly. They died spiritually knowing they were inherently evil, and began wearing clothes to hide the shame of their genetically imposed sexual immorality. Those apes are your grandmama and grandpapa. The story is not fiction, it is an accurate depiction of the transition from animal to human, it is objective moral truth.
@@macmac1022 #1 Morality is just as objective as mathematics. They are both branches of the same tree. #2 Yes, there are objective moral duties. Number one is we must struggle to survive, just like all life on Earth. #3 Yes, it is immoral not to do an objective moral duty. If we don't struggle to stay alive, we will not. #4 Yes, God has fulfilled his moral obligation. We exist as a result #5 No, that persons actions are not moral. If he can save the child, he should #6 Yes, I am saving the child #7 It is an act of justice to punish innocent people to stop an even greater evil from infecting the whole world with hate and violence #8 I would stop the child from being harmed #9 You read the text wrong. Apes came out of the trees perusing animals on the African plains, they ate mush. .rooms (not an apple) growing on the feces of the animals they were tracking, natural selection selected for apes with brains who could withstand the mind expanding outcomes. They were not poisoned, they were burdened with knowledge of the future and the moral obligation to respond accordingly. They died spiritually knowing they were inherently evil, and began wearing clothes to hide the shame of their genetically imposed sexual immorality. Those apes are your grandmama and grandpapa. The story is not fiction, it is an accurate depiction of the transition from animal to human, it is objective moral truth.
@@macmac1022 #1 Morality is just as objective as mathematics. They are both branches of the same tree. #2 Yes, there are objective moral duties. Number one is we must struggle to survive, just like all life on Earth. #3 Yes, it is immoral not to do an objective moral duty. If we don't struggle to stay alive, we will not. #4 Yes, God has fulfilled his moral obligation. We exist as a result #5 No, that persons actions are not moral. If he can save the child, he should #6 Yes, I am saving the child #7 It is an act of justice to punish innocent people to stop an even greater evil from infecting the whole world with hate and violence #8 I would stop the child from being harmed #9 You read the text wrong. Apes came out of the trees perusing animals on the african plains, they ate mush. .rooms (not an apple) growing on the feces of the animals they were tracking, natural selection selected for apes with brains who could withstand the mind expanding outcomes. They were not poisoned, they were burdened with knowledge of the future and the moral obligation to respond accordingly. They died spiritually knowing they were inherently evil, and began wearing clothes to hide the shame of their genetically imposed sexual immorality. Those apes are your grandmama and grandpapa. The story is not fiction, it is an accurate depiction of the transition from animal to human, it is objective moral truth.
I take issue with Bret's claim that the idea of hell is a powerful motivator. As a believer who takes hell seriously I beg to differ. All this will produce is fear and fear is a very bad long term motivator simply because we aren't capable of feeling fear all the time without dying or going insane, and we would need to feel it all the time in order for the fear to be an effective deterrent. In my youth when I was in a room with a naked girl who wanted me fear was that farthest thing from my mind. This is why it is said the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" not the middle of wisdom and not the end of wisdom. It was only when I was given a positive vision of the glorious and good creation that I could become that I was able to forgo self gratification and pursue goodness. Bret is very intelligent but it's hard to get things right when you are talking about people whos beliefs you don't fully understand. You can't fully understand unless you have tried very hard for many years to live according to religious principles.
Hell can be a metaphor. We need both positive and negative motivators. Something to run towards, and something to run from. Having both helps us to achieve our vision. In a completely nonreigious way, we need to understand how bad things could get and what the cost of not developing ourselves to our fullest potential is.
@@podcastfarm But a metaphor for what exactly? I'm not asking for the sake of being pedantic (one of my most egregious faults) It's a question of real significance. In the situation you describe, as well as a religious context, hell is a reality, you can call it a state of mind and or being if you will. It's urgent to avoid it because it's concrete. Wouldn't a metaphor imply that the reality is different from the idea?
@@47StormShadowa metaphor for when you’re pooping and it’s not coming out and you keep pushing and pushing and OH JESUS HELP ME. I swear god….help me poop and I’ll change my life. Then you feel the pain….THE HOLE STRETCHES! Aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh l!!!!!!! This is it. One great push. Sweating, straining….. RELEASE! HALLELUJAH! Rapture….
Dawkins knows that his life work has collapsed like a house of cards due to advances in understanding fine tuning, genetic codes, and combinatorial inflation.
The key for understanding the disharmony of the Peterson and Dawkins discussion I think is captured in Iain McGillchrists work. Particularly as laid out in his book "The Master and his Emissary". I don't know how relevant the invention of "fuzzy logic" is to the discussion but it seems to me that hyper rational proclivity from Dawkins has it's advantages but the more imprecise yet more complex relaying of information can be through symbolism because absolutes can force a delusion if the question you're exploring is in the grey area. We understand things differently through the way we employ the hemispheres of the brain. That fuzzy side according to McGillchrist is more sophisticated than the "rational" side. For me Peterson speaks both "languages" yet is trying hard to convey his understanding through the hemisphere Dawkins is predominantly focused on. So I suspect Brett is on the money that Dawkins needs to listen a little more carefully rather than dismissing Peterson as Being drunk on symbolism. Even coming up with that slogan is a sign he's committing the same sin he accuses theists of doing by dismissing an idea based on a particular belief as he did in his book "The God delusion". I don't think a converging of minds between the two would be favourable to the faithful in any shape or form but from a scientific perspective we might get closer to understanding ourselves...
@@jamesestrella5911Dawkins is someone who ignores the assumptions and beliefs we make to begin the journey of scientific discovery, ironically hiding behind the altruistic idea of Truth. In other words, incapable of having meaningful philosophical ideation and limiting himself to experimental determinism. If you can’t reason about the abstract ideology of your own mind, you have little hope to reason about others. When J.P. would say “well what _is_ truth, really?” That’s to say, what is truth to _you_ ? The scientific determinism of perceived reality? That’s a religion, by every sense of the word.
@@nadialindley7696 Peterson is non-fiction, a philosophic and psychological meta-analysis of story and meaning, Dawkins is a 10-page science direct journal summary blog.
@@nadialindley7696 You're a long way off. Try and understand it from this perspective...Dawkins could easily use his dismissive argument the same way with the concept of money. He certainly believes in money because he cannot function in human society without it. The value of money isn't real in any rational way in the same manner the value of God isn't real in Dawkins mind. Yet value is attributed to it across cultures and it's a vital part of what makes up civilisation. Refusing to study or aknowlege it based on a limited concept of "real" doesn't make you a scientist. In this way Peterson embodies what it is to be a scientist than Dawkins. Some of the hypothesises that Peterson is working on might be a little fanciful or far fetched, but without the exploration of the phenomena or in Dawkins case the willingness to explore there's no discovery, only ignorance... Ironically it's the same argument Dawkins used against religion in his book "The God Delusion" against the idea of religion...
It is a profoundly strange phenomenon that unconscious atoms coalesced into a human form who then sit on podcasts and ponder their own existence. Seems like a stretch to say that that is an unguided process in such a violent universe.
The simulation theory for me is the most probable explanation for this age old question, and also explains other strange phenomena that we observe in our reality, the most obvious one being quantum physics. This makes a lot more sense to me than a so called all loving creator god, who just so happened to create a universe with an unbelievable amount of pain and suffering for beings that very often did nothing to deserve it. There is no good explanation from the Christian community for the problem of suffering and there never will be, because it simply doesn't make any sense why god would allow such an immense amount of suffering for the beings he apparently designed in his image and loves unconditionally
God didn’t create clones of himself - he created children with their own free will. When you have a child, you may wish that they would never suffer, but it is a natural part of the process of developing and growing as a human being. The Christian answer to why there is suffering in the mortal world is that they believe an immortal, eternal one will follow. This world is like childhood where we are shaped and developed to be ready for the next. Realists believe that this is the only life we have which is why they see so much suffering as unconscionable.
@@lovaboy57 Christians come up with all kinds of answers for the problem of suffering, none of them make any sense and the free will explanation certainly doesn't do it for me either. Isn't there free will in heaven? Of course there is. Yet there is no suffering in heaven. Why not just create a universe that is already like that realm and ditch the needless immeasurable amounts of suffering in the first place? My sister is severely autistic and will never be able to live a normal life, it's incredibly sad and has caused my family immense pain. What did she do to get screwed so bad by god? What's up with holocaust, the armenian genocide, etc etc. Needless amounts of suffering that is completely horrifying that is just completely unnecessary that this god surely could prevent, and in fact knew would happen before hand since he is supposedly all knowing. Nevermind the whole you go to hell for eternity thing if you're a non believer. You're going to need to come up with something way better than that to justify all of this.
What Bret Weinstein should take into consideration is that Christianity relativized the law and repudiated the dietary laws, thus accommodating the religion to modern times. It appears to be a more modern concept because religious law is adaptable. The drawback is fragmentation. Protestantism has a plenitude of sects with laws of their own.
Christianity also has no belief whatsoever in “a being in the sky” whatever that’s supposed to mean. Shows a huge lack of knowledge on the subject on Brett’s part
I don’t think fragmentation is as bad as people think, it may even be an advantage. So long as the original work is not altered. It allows for flexibility, and even less corruption due to monopoly. If you don’t like the Catholic Church, but don’t want to toss the whole thing out, you have the Lutherans. That’s not quite your cup of tea? Eastern Orthodox. So on and so forth. I’d have to really think that out, but I at least don’t believe fragmentation is a ground to dismiss the whole thing, which is typically the case that is made.
So if religion is an extension of phenotype, so is language. And so are ideas. And so are abstractions. Culture in its broadest sense. Culture as an easier to modificate adaptative tool than genes.
There's gotta be a name for the phenomenon where a specialist in a subject decides that nearly everything that exists can be framed in that speciality. Everything is math, everything is physics, football is religion and culture is extended phenotype. And so on and so on. Its like the meme about the guy who has only ever seen the film Boss Baby.
@@j8000I also relate that to people applying their source of pleasure or happiness to everyone as if that's their goal too. It's like everyone experiences a high and then concludes that if everyone just acquired the same high they would be happy and fulfilled. It can be wealth, or physical strength, or having kids, or drugs, or religious epiphany etc etc
@@j8000 Intelligence at least partly consists of finding relations between things and/or between ideas. Whether you like it or not. The guy(s) who will eventually find a way to relate general relativity and quantum physics will become the most famous scientist ever.
This is incredible!! I'm so glad this clip popped up. New sub, instant... Well fan isn't the right word. Very interested in listening to your conversations
The problem is, Dawkins is one of the most revered and respected Evolutionary Biologists on existence and Bret (who is famous not for his academic credentials but his bravery on Social issues) keeps trying to drag the man into a conversation he isnt interested in. Dawkins and JBPs recent conversation highlighted this perfectly....two very intelligent men just talking past each other......not all conversations are meant to happen
yes but adaptation is a prime precursor for intelligence and dawkins rigidly clings to his thesis like he's as zealous as any religious acolyte.. and him being so "uninterested" lends to there being no evolution and progress. He's become the evolutionary dead-end he describes by proxy.. and a modern day example of "the science is settled" well, yeah.. until it is not. but i guess he isn't the man to carry that torch. His goose is cooked. He could talk like an intelligent man, but if he only recognises his own intelligence and those who match his conclusions and deliberately strives to not understand other facets then his intelligence is used in an anti-intelligent manner, as a gatekeeper. And ironically he uses his deep faith in his position to do so, while simultaneously being terrified of faith and how it is used by others.
@weegieboard8432 have you watched his debate with Bret? Judging by what you have written there, I feel like you don't know much about Dawkins body of work or have watched him in many conversations? This man is 83 years old, he absolutely is not the future of Evolutionary biology but he is still tackling some of the fundamental issues and there's no one more qualified to decide what the next problem he should like into is going to be. He's not dogmatically clinging on to anything, his time is precious. Should Roger Penrose waste time discussing the square root of 2 with Terence Crawford?
@@martinjnagy yes but tell me honestly there isn't a fundamental difference in approach from penrose to dawkins.. Penrose IS STILL that guy, and is older than Dawkins. Infintely curious, never a settled science guy. Dawkins is a giant, but gravity always wins even against giants. but it's his arrogance that stoops him earlier than he has to be and takes him out of being in the same breath as pensrose in terms of scientifically minded purity of pursuit. He is ironically far more dogmatic, and he is ascerbic to percieved idiocy which infers huge huge ego involvement
@@weegieboard8432 Penrose is a tier above I do agree. And I'll also agree there is a pretty big ego with Dawkins. But I don't think he's closed minded in his own field....he is just content handling unknown problems close to his field of expertise. If you haven't watched his debate with Bret, I do highly recommend it....I don't believe Bret is in the same league Dawkins....couldn't believe what he was saying about Mathematical Models
@@martinjnagy yeah i've watched the debate you refer to. Was a frustrating watch, but I honestly don't think it was had in good faith as a means of being in service to and understanding "truth" by both parties.. I understand the idea of Dawkins staying within his wheelhouse and i think in some ways there is huge merit to that. an example of it's merit is: When i think of Perterson's geopolitical/historical takes it really makes me cringe a bit. But Brett isn't aiming at discussing geometry or astrophysics with him- what they are discussing are at least adjacent if not wholly relevant in terms of topic scope. I'm reminded of a discussion i have had with a close friend, where he watches and sends me flat earther's being debunked and being dunked on. He loves it. But i can't help but think, science is the pursuit of questioning and approximating most likely explanations for phenomena in our world, always with an open ended invitation to ask more questions and their pursuit- to callously dismiss the attempts of people that do so(however wrong they may be) without any good faith non-personal argumentation isn't in service to greater understanding being reached by all, or in service of the devotion to pursuit of truth these questions represent.. it's anathema to it. all it does is shit on a potential aspirant to the truthful pursuit and all it serves is the ego and the associated feelings of relative superiority of the individual condemning and shaming. That isn't science. it's a type of tribalism and attempt at ostracisation which is counter-productive to the stated goals of the community. it's simply sad, bullying and deeply self righteous egoism. it's the kind of thing that facilitates Anthony Fauci exclaming that HE IS SCIENCE. No. It's more likely you are narcissistic and sadistic than the living embodiment of science/truth. Dawkins has too much of that in him, and as a consequence becomes a barrier to the development of the very thing he helped shape because he has dark ego involvement. And i am familiar with Dawkins work, he writes well and I loved reading his stuff before being introduced to some of the more toxic aspects of his nature/public persona. it doesn't take away his achievements in my eyes, but it does preclude him from having a stake in the future of the pursuit of truth. just mho
Not really. He just thinks religion is hueristic, and in that way needs updating. It’s better IMO than the new atheist assertion is is entirely useless, even dangerous. Maybe I am missing something, but I see this idea as really shortsighted, or blatantly wrong. His comment about uranium enrichment, which he used years ago on Rogan I think for instance. Maybe because he comes from a Jewish background and Judaism is much more literal and detailed. Some 600 something commandments of exactly what not to do. I’ve heard Jews make an argument disavowing any Biblical case against abortion because it wasn’t explicitly listed in the commandments. Christianity on the other hand seems to have this addendum feature built into it, the Holy Spirit playing a key role. Peter and his Vision of the unclean food is an example. A huge revelation. Oh, it’s not what we eat that makes us unclean but what we produce. A modern day Peter might say. It’s not whether we enrich Urianiun or not, but what we do with it, ie produce energy for the world, or blow up cities.
First video seen from this chanel because of Dr Weinstein. Despite a few logical loopholes I feel left with awesome questions I never dare to ask myself. Thank you!!
Also to note, dawkins doesn't get mindfulness either. Sam harris guided him through it on his podcast and all of a sudden dawkins didnt like it and saw no point to it. That's not skepticism that's cynicism.
Ignorance. That also explains his huge ego. I can like some of the things he says. I do not like him. And my interest in his ideas goes hand in hand with the person.
Maybe, though having listened to Harris on a number of occasions I'm tempted to think his mindfulness is about as profound as the profundity of thought you have after smoking a few bowls. You think you're being deep, but are you really? He seems just entrapped by his biases as anyone.
Thank you gentlemen.. Dr Weinstein .. always a pleasure to hear your voice. How do we find a balance between the pressure for upholding what’s “best” for the greater good and the need to maintain the individual’s “boundaries “ or “right” … it’s enmeshed.. but it is difficult to make an informed decision if the group does not have all of the relevant information to make choices in (specifically American) local ecosystem. Gratitude
I used to think pretty highly of Brett but increasingly I keep noticing that he's not as vigorously rational as he likes to present himself. He's constantly speaking as if he has a bird's eye perspective on what is going on and understands how it could be improved. But if you listen closely he says a lot of clever sounding nonsense. For example he claims Dawkins can't/won't see how culture is the same thing as an anatomical adaptation. Sounds nice except it's a bad equivalence. Culture is a behavioral adaptation akin walking upright or speaking and I'm pretty sure Dawkins would have no problem agreeing with that. And why would future historians have a hard time writing about the current times? We record more than in any previous time. Short of some sort of catastrophe there will be an overabundance of information about the late 20th and early 21st centuries. And those historians will deem Jordan Peterson a great philosopher? Why? What exactly has Peterson written that would even qualify as original in the philosophical realm? He's a self help guru. And don't get me wrong, he seems to genuinely help a lot of people in that endeavor. Which is great. But that doesn't make him a great or even good philosopher. This is at best him propping up a friend. And what is his big claim that will get Dawkins' knickers in even more of a twist? That our first understanding of something is more metaphorical than it is literal. That's sort of vague. But he goes on the clarify that he's referring to humanities advancement of understanding as we learn more about the way the world works. For example, before we understood what caused malaria we thought swampy air caused it. Still not seeing anything I would expect Dawkins to disagree with. But then he throws the gobbledygook in by claiming that the assertion that swampy air causes malaria "isn't exactly wrong". That's false and it demonstrates exactly what the problem with religion is. Saying "You're more likely to get malaria near swamps." or "Malaria is caused by swampy air." are not the same thing and it's always preferable to understand the prior than believe the later. And Brett then goes on to say as much. So I'm left confused about what exactly he wishes Dawkins would come around to understanding. Everything Brett says here boils down to "I really wish Dawkins would just agree with me. But I can't convince him because he's gotten too old to see the wisdom of my ideas."
I think they’re operating on two different resolutions of analysis. Of course Dawkins wouldn’t disagree that human cultural development has a biological/evolutionary basis, what he would object to is the appropriateness of the application of the Darwinian framework as an explanation to these kind of problems. As an analogue - if we could keep track of every single particle state then perhaps these phenomena can be broken down into a physical or mathematical explanation. But we can’t, the same way the phenomena are too complex to apply a simple evolutionary explanation towards. Of course there are evolutionary factors at play but the framework is not at the right level of resolution to be useful and in fact can be misleading
This was an absolutely phenomenal conversation and the descriptions of religious pieces being a technology is excellent. When I tried to describe to a religious friend the difference between balanced religious people and balanced atheists, I drew a circle on a board and filled in a small section and called it 'Science" and then in the big section I wrote "God." And I then said over time, this will happen, and then started filling in the small science space so it expanded. It's not technically that it's overwriting God, since nobody knows what God is, but it's our conscious explanation for the unknown, and for consequence. I then erased God, and put "Unknown" and then said "Congratulations, Atheists and you believe the same thing, you just have different place-holders.
Bret brought up Kosher laws with pork being out of date because we don’t worry about trichinosis. 99% of pork sold is from pigs fed gmo soy/corn and has a high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio which is inflammatory. Many pigs are fed actual excrement.
@@lovelife1867 Or you could just be consistent with Judaism Islam and how Christianity is actually supposed to be in the Bible, yet in all honesty whatever flack Muslims & Jews get they are FARRRRR more sincere in their faith with God than Christians, many Christians will even say eating pork is not wrong, yet In the Old Testament, Leviticus 11:7 declared pork unclean, even then Christians will basically manipulate the word of God to appease their temptations.
When Dawkins said something along the lines of his and Peterson's brains are just different, so he can't understand what Peterson is talking about because he cares more about how the lion came to be rather than the memetic symbolism of a dragon across Human history Peterson is explaining because dragons aren't "real" broke my heart. Dawkins is actually closed minded, which is ironic.
But the concept of the “dragon” was developed within the Phenotype across millenia and across different populations to convey information symbolically. That is a fact. Discussing the significance of it culturally or even religiously as it pertains to the culture you live in is worthwhile.
So glad to hear this concept spread, that the prohibitions are there to protect us from adjacent opaque threats. Totally agree that it is in need of updating, so glad to see the trajectory that Brett has been on. Along with James Lindsay one of my favorite post-academy intellectual giants
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Look at the mess we are in in the U.S. because people ignore this meme. P.S. I am not religious.
Let me add that Dawkins never accepted to debate guys like Michael Behe. He seems like he would never put the Darwinian doctrine at least in the narrow sense at risk
It's not that he's not listening, it's just that he doesn't think God and everything related to that are true, a fact. He demonstrated that he fully understands what Jordan proposed about the Bible, but he just doesn't agree that there really is a God, a virgin, miracles and things like that. He accepts the social function of religion.
Dawkins doesn’t get it at all. He literally thinks spirituality is beneath him. He thinks religion not being true makes it not worth considering. Weinstein is unintentionally admitting his own limitations here (any any other anti-religion scientist): religion is a brilliant and powerful evolutionary advantage - but I won’t use it. This attitude is actually captured readily within Christianity. It is pride. The Bible teaches very well how pride holds you back. In the end, Brett and Dawkins are both limited scientists due to their own pride.
@@benvoiles9166 I think religion is holding us back. We have people who believe in flat earth and try and get evolution taken out of schools, and in the extreme, people killing each other because of religion. And I find christians and muslims have a really hard time answer some of my simple moral questions, would you like to see if you can?
Brett is the one who is not listening. Dawkins agrees with Peterson on the benefits of believing in a supernatural realm, he just doesn't believe that that realm exists. Wanting there to be and that realm actually existing, are two different things entirely. Dawkins knows the difference and Brett and Jordan apparently do not.
It sounds like you've both read Whitehead without reading Whitehead. Just in case I'm right...read his trilogy 1. Science and the Modern World. 2. Process and Reality 3. The Adventure of Ideas
Brett was onto something talking about the kosher laws of the Torah - but like too many modern commentators he mistakes them for just being a primitive science. No doubt avoiding undercooked pork and washing your hands have some health benefits. But if one looks deeper into the Christian tradition (start maybe with patristic commentary on Mark 7, Acts 10, Gal 2 and 1 Cor 8) he would find the significance goes way beyond food safety. The kosher laws are dealing with purity and discernment generally. Of course you don’t want to pollute your body with filth and parasites. How much more should you not want to pollute your mind with obscenity, or pollute your soul with evil speech and actions? The first is given so that once understood it can be used to illustrate the second. And we know the first really has validity, it’s not arbitrary. So the second becomes more credible. Brett still has some bias against religion. That came out in his conversation with Jonathan Pageau - which had something of the same dynamic as Peterson/Dawkins. Even though Brett can (unlike Dawkins) acknowledge religion as a valid adaptation, he insists it’s an obsolete one. But this is because he’s only grasping it at the surface level, like “don’t eat dirty things.”
I mean, going beyond food safety is an adaption on an adaption. It illustrates what he's saying rather than undermining it. Plus, understanding that mechanism allows you too understanding the relevance even if we change pork to seed oils for modern practicality.
I love the point you made about the food laws, etc. of the Torah/old testament being used as illustrations to show how much more important purity of the spirit is. It wasn't until I read your comment that I made the connection.
I see that everyone attacked Richard Dawkins for not having it but you gotta understand his point of view. Jordan Peterson is a man who said he would take 40 hours to respond to the question "do you believe this happened?" He is a man who loves to go around the subject without answering using bunch of fancy words. He lives in a fantasy world, that's why he's talking about dragons and stuff. Dawkins is a realist. He is not delusional. How can they agree on anything? It's a total waste of time.
The reason Jordon takes so long is that he views that question as a vehicle to cheapen the meaning the biblical text holds. Essentially it’s a trap, an honest trap made out of curiosity, but if he answers either yes or no, it has a likelihood to either lessen the perceived strength he holds or his argument hold and completely ignores the points he’s trying to make, but not answering directly can also have that problem, so it’s just a rhetorical catch 22.
"he lives in a fantasy world talking about dragons and stuff" Eesh man, I don't know how to tell me that it makes me sad that you think at that level without sounding like a jerk.
Richard Dawkins is a wonderful teacher, to children also. those old seminars for younger people were so great. all I know is IF Dawkins is on the side of the green climate change and woke nonsense then hes lost me entirely. Peterson can be a bit anal on some things. But I can agree with Dawkins on his agnostic view, its the default view and so for a Darwinian he cant see further but he has good reason for that as far as he is concerned.
@@ChauvinistTroll People are not "on the side of science", that is noncence..,sciense is a tool that can be used correct and as we have seen during covid incorrect.
@@Jannette-mw7fg Since is the pursue of truth through observation, experimentation and testing of evidence - its not a choice based on how it makes you feel. I have no idea what you're talking about covid - and this is already a huge red flag about your stance on science.
@@ChauvinistTroll picking sides is not scientific. Also science relies on the assumption that "observations of past behavior tell us something about future behavior". The assumption is not scientific at all, merely an assumption. You believe in scientism (the believe that everything can be explained through materialistic science, and only through materialistic science)
I have great admiration for both men. Dawkins work is nothing short of revolutionary & Peterson's psycho-analytical revelations of symbiology & culture really capture the essence of Dawkins' meme metaphor. I have to thank Bret for articulating thoughts I too have pondered.
Fascinating conversation. The truth is the Bible has many many programmer notes. Each generation adds to them and discovers past notes that need revising. It's the text's ultimate durability that is one of its most compelling attributes.
In time we will understand more of Carl Yung. His insight is gnostic, a knowing from within. I’m a huge fan of Dawkins, both men help us have a deeper understanding of what we truly are. Unfortunately, Dawkins conscience bias is not allowing room for those aspects of reality that can’t be measured. He needs to explore dmt and find out how close he is to the truth. We are on the home stretch, conversations like these are so valuable. Thank you gentlemen!
Hegel is awful. Following his philosophy is what has led us to the decline of civilization we are currently in, where technology is rising but life expectancy is falling. The interminable conflict inspired by Hegel's flawed philosophy has proven to be a disaster.
@@patrickbarnes9874 people who misunderstood hegel caused the decline... bro was ahead of his time. the point is not to take everything he says as gospel, but distill his core message and you will realize how profound his thought was. Hell Carl Jung formed alot of his ideas based on Hegel. That was why he called Hegel a psychologist masquerading as a philosopher.
@@PAVI.MarketplaceNope; Hegel was a crank who placed the ultimate locus of understanding within the human mind. The "divine spark of consciousness that creates the world", i.e. human perception creates reality, i.e. what you sincerely believe is, actually, true. This internalizing of truth without reference to external causal factors has led to heinous moral disasters like communism, Lysenkoism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, and non-medicalized trans self-identitarianism.
You dont know what any of that means, and you sound like Dawkins, meaning uoure acting like a psychopath and are cognitively atrophying your ability to see beyond your own ego.
But it IS an opinion that’s true, except on the questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. We are made of material stuff but matter isn’t all that there is, contrary to materialist opinion on reality.
Actually, materialism has never been proven true. Consciousness is the only thing anyone has experienced, and it's impossible to step outside of consciousness to prove that something exists independently of consciousness. So yes, it is just an unproven opinion.
I used to get annoyed in university with people doing this... people confuse the model of the world for the world itself... Yes, you can represent the world mathematically or geometrically... but confusing your model of the world for the world itself or for itseld underlying fabric is just intellectual arrogance. The model of the physical atom is just that... a model. It doesnt mean the world is literally made up of atoms or that atoms literally exist in some fundamental sense... they are just 1 model for understanding and explaining what is going on/what we are doing. A quantum physicist would say the model of the world should not be represented by atoms but certain non-phslysical "quantum particles".... Again, models... @@anthonybrett
@@Havre_Chithramodels that look nothing like the thing they represent are shit. If I build a model of voyager 1 I don't want it to look like a tractor. I'm not going to confuse my model with the world but I don't need an inaccurate model like religion to avoid the mistake
@julesbrunton1728 You do realize that the models you consider accurate depend a priori on the model provided by The Bible? In fact, the basic mathematical logic and wisdom of people like pythagoras are encoded within The Bible itself... Newton was able to derive his Laws of Physics from it as well. All of the sciences and things we know today to be true depend upon the model presented to us in The Bible. You won't have a true understanding of the sciences without it. Trust me. I grew up 30 years as an atheist and a devotee to science. I love science but I didn't really understand it until I learned The Bible. Do as you please, but I am telling you that The Bible is the KEYSTONE model you need to get on board with if you are going to become an actual player at the table in this life.
@@Havre_Chithra Agreed. It's also the primary reason why science is technically an ideology. Dr. Jan Bentz recently had a great talk with Peter Boghossian trying to explain this but Peter didn't see his point. The scientific model, is literally no different than an ideological lens you are viewing the world through. That's what ideologies are, frameworks through which we interpret the world (well according to Slavoj Zizek whom I personally agree with.) Peter didn't agree, but he had a lot of trouble arguing against it. ;) Not knocking Peter, I think he's a saint but he gets a little bogged down in "new atheism".
Everyone should have both the mind of a teacher and that of a student. It’s great to be so knowledgeable that you can pass that to others in the form of teaching. But never forget you have the ability to learn from others. A wise man once told me you can learn something from everyone. The lesson isn’t always useful but it has helped me remember to never think to highly of myself even in my area of expertise
Jordan Peterson lives in vagueness and bullshit, Dawkins was trying make him commit to any statement he was saying and make him explain what exactly he means.
@@hypno5690 he is so precise he cannot even respond to a yes/no question. You people are the worst deceptively anti-intellectual cult that exists online.
Watching the Peterson Dawkins interview I couldnt get the picture of a 5 year old with fingers stuck in ears going "la la la la la i cant hear you" out of my head. It was honestly painful to see.
I think, in basic terms, Dawkins arguments are that just because something has benefit doesn't mean the underlying are true (religion). Dawkins and Peterson are arguing two different things, with both being interesting to discuss.
Dawkins is arguing at a lower perspective where he can LARP superiority, Peterson is looking at it from a higher and deeper perspective where he can fit everything into truth and reality. Dawkins is trying to remove eberything except what he can see, but he is almost blind... You have zero truth, stop LARPing like Dawkins you ever saw it, you confuse "measure" with axiom.
Believing something that you know isnt true is advantageous and even the rational thing to do when it forms the basis of everything that you know IS true. I know that the scientific model of the atom is not literally true... no one has ever seen an atom itself, only representations of it. I know that the model presented to me of the atom is not literally true... it is just a model... however, assuming it is true provides a foundation and an explanation for everything else I know to be the case. It is a useful story or myth that helps explain our everday ordinary experiences, like why the elements differ in their properties (their state, density, stability, conductivity, etc). It doesnt mean things are literally made up of atoms, but it is true as a predictive model of explanation.
When you guys talked about the comment layer, and how we should write a bible II book with the comments on the side, all I can think of is that this is exactly what peterson has been doing for the last few years, gathering the greatest theological minds and making public lectures explaining and going into details about all of the stories written in the bible. Its not a book per say, but whats in those lectures certainly contains the wisdom necessary to wrote such a book.
14:21 I've listened to the 😮 always come to the same conclusion. He refused to admit he has no direct answer to the core subject of the reality of his own belief of God, or defense of his insistents that God exists. He just layers multiple abstract arguments and scenarios that frustrates the discussion. I think Dawkins tries to listen and understand, but is always offered shifting sand. IMHO, Peterson is hiding his own issues behind his sophisticated use of obstructive layers. Simply put, to me he is full of shite!
I'm Pro Peterson in this but I agree with you. They will never be able to articulate anything, and that's the problem with religious point of view. They also can't admit that they want to be Christian just because it's a popular clubhouse. And can't rectify how you could possibly believe in something, while also knowing that it's not true. Thank God for a long history of intellectuals believing in God. Peterson can look to that and feel comfortable. Personally I don't believe in God but I don't see how you can derive any beliefs from that.
Bret Weinstein at his best. Taking incredibly complex concepts and distilling them down for most everyone to more easily understand, just incredible. Great job, Breedlove!
I can't stand these arrogant atheists that make zero attempts to understand religion and constantly strawman it. Nobody believes in "a guy in the sky", STOP. Also, "those of us that know there is no guy in the sky (God)" no, you don't know that at all. You have chosen to believe that, but you don't know that and it's not something you've "discovered". What pompous , self-satisfied nonsense.
I find it interesting that Dawkins/Peterson embody the Progressive/Conservative approach in a quite archetypical way on the topic of religion. The truth, however, is found somewhere between the poles. Religion as a technology is an amazing concept, and balancing specifically Judaism and Christianity, with their goals of enabling a flourishing society, between the poles would be something EXTREMELY valuable, worthwhile, and interesting. I hope the will, brainpower, wisdom, and sincerity needed to do that will be found and supported on a big enough scale to make it a meaningful endeavor.
Yall need to give the Bible a proper chance, join a bible study, join a reading club, start going to church. Align your actions and motivations with the actions and motivations of Jesus. The Bible is inexhaustible in its wisdom, and there are a seemingly infinite number of commentaries and apologetic defenses. There is no way forward without Jesus. The ambiguity is intentional.
I am interested in Jesus' journey in his twenties when he travelled to Ladak and lived in a buddhist monastery for 6 years (read: THE SECRET LIFE OF CHRIST) this makes everything make sense, he was enlightened and went back home teaching love and peace within yourself. Heaven and hell are places in your mind not places of reward or punishment. His teachings were warped to a place of fear and control through religion and the Bible which was written hundreds of years after his death.
Protestantism doesn't offer anything that will contribute to this kind of dialogue. There is no "giving the Bible a proper chance" without proper interpretation. You need to be embedded within the tradition it spawned from.
Sure, but Peterson needs to realize that memes are the basis for archetypes, rather then some teleological pre-evolutionary phenomena. So they both need to conceed ground. Brett also seems to miss the potential danger in calling something 'metaphorical "truth" rather then usefull lie. One might lead to a dogmatic adherence to these outdated parts of tradition, while the other will not. There are trade-offs when it comes to how much you should fool yourself. Too much and you become dogmatic and unable to adapt, too little and these ideas become forceless. Seems like all of them need to conceed some ground if they truely want to come closer to truth. One just has to remember that all these 'social engineere types are about promoting 'group fittness', which also has trade-offs for the individual that all being said, Dawkins does point out one thing that both brett and peterson seem to miss (which is related to the dogmatism at play when people use 'metaphorical truth' as they show their hand). That is Dawkins insistance on calling memes 'parasites'. Both Peterson and Brett can't seem to engage with the fact that these ideas might hurt individals and groups for the sake of their own propogation. They have no way of understanding nihilism, antinatalism, pessimism ect. continued survival in an evolutionary sense. Which is part of their own limitation of this theory. There are reasons why memes can survive across time and space that is not related to ouer 'benifit', begging the question to this whole enterprise of reinterpretation of religion as 'benifitial'. People need to be able to ask the question "benifitial for what?" Thomas Sowells questions for lefitst might aswell apply to traditionalists here 1. Compared to what? 2. At what cost? 3. What hard evidence do you have?
I don't think you understand his stance on "metaphorical" truth. What Bret speaks about is "adaptive" or "evolutionary" truth, which is basically a heuristic that facilitates survival and fitness to the environment. It is not "objectively true" that you should be scared by every unexpected noise at night, but millions of years of selection has resulted in us reflexively becoming alert and tense when we hear it. This also extends into sociopsychology, according to Bret. It's not that we know something is false but pretend it's true, it's that we automatically act as if it's true even if we don't have a systemic logical framework for why it should be true. This is what makes postmodernism so formidable, as there really doesn't seem to be any hard line objectivity to any system of thought or morality. Nevertheless, we cannot act as if we don't value our worldview, and we have to act somehow, which gets into metamodernism and postmodern traditionalist thought. But the point is, the adaptive truths are not just "useful lies."
@@sigiligus Sure that might be his stance, but then he uses it diffrently then peterson, and should be carefull to destinguish them. In his past discussions with peterson he didn't seem to bother to destinguish their worldviews. To the point where ideas like 'the gun is always loaded' came up as an example. Which is one of these 'usefull lies' because as Alex o'conner pointed out, one would want the gun to be 'really' loaded when one has to protect onself, so one has to be able to destinguish the usefull protective idea of threating guns as loaded, with the usefull idea of an gun 'actually' being loaded. I personally havn't seen Bret talk about this in the way you ley out, so il be happy if you have a link to that, but even if its just your interpretation, i still appriciate the idea you offer, despite it not being what bret seems to have been talking about in the past with peterson and dawkins in perticular EDIT: so as it relates to what you call 'adaptive truth' or 'evolutionary' truth, i think that seems to be a better description of what is happening in terms of evolutionary frameworks ala donald hoffman (which peterson also needs to learn from), but 'metaphorical truth' in respects to 'fooling yourself' about some ideas usefullness still seems to apply to religious ideas that can be dismissed.
@@sigiligus The point is that Peterson is not seeing himself as a postmodernist in all situations(at all), there are a lot of people listening to him that are more on the fundamentalist side of religion, which people like Dawkins criticize. I think a big moment in there discussion was when Peterson admitted that he doesn't care if religion comes from god or is created by us. Of course there is a point to be made, but I think it's in conflict with what Peterson tells people in other situations and what his followers actually believe. A cultural Christian doesn't care if it's bottom up or top down, a believer does! I think the remark with the parasite really fits to this. Since the Idea of topdown leads to a stronger mem (Since there is no easy self correction so more stability), they can have this feature which lead to their survival and not our benefit. This is what people like Alex, Harris and Dawkins criticize, the inherent idea of dogma in religion, and Peterson didn't really address this point, for whatever reason.
@@DavidRemington I have watch both him and Pageau, and can't say they adress the main issue with the position. Its a teleological approach and is at odds with the very theory they attempt to use for their gain (evolution). Donald Hoffman questioned the nature of their 'metaphysical' claims, and the knowability of such claims given the evolutionary framework. Iain McGilchrist questioned the process, and ultimate purpose Michael Malice question the practical aswell as the foundational aspects of the psychological needs at play (all these are taken from jordans conversations with them) all in all its a very lacking theory of everything. It requires more philosophical work, and since none of them are philosophers (atleast not in the analytic sense) im doubtfull we will get any satisfying anwsers to these questions from them. While i don't endorse all views made by these people (obvious, but i still feel the need say it) i suggest looking into "Scientific Genius" on youtube, for the most indepth discussion on the topic as far as i could see
Peterson word salads his way through their conversation and says nothing. Just tries to get away from directly answering any of Dawkins points. Makes it very clear that it’s a grifter speaking to a scientist.
This conversation frustrates me so much. To have this level of knowledge on biology and science took so many years of study to speak with such a level of certainty and Brett knows the levels of learning as a student, as a researcher and of course i am sure he would admit you even learn more as an educator based on feedback or reconceptualization while dictating to students. Yet he speaks with such certainty about the religious corpus while i am almost certain he has given a fraction of time and effort into its exploration. Has he read the church fathers? Aquinas, the didicade etc. he even miscategorized the reformation, they didnt want to break away intially. Everything they said about religion and meme evolution can be correct AND God can still be real.
This understanding that he describes about religion is something that I have understood. And it is very key and important. It is absolutely true. Look at the Mormons for instance. For the Sikhs. They have more success and happiness than other people. And Jews to be sure.
I'm not religious because it doesn't work for me. I'd never have the arrogance to tell someone what works for them. I find meaning in uncertainty and purpose in the pursuit of understanding what I can to the best of my ability every day. For me the journey is the purpose and the destination is irrelevant. I don't like making assumptions on the intentions of others. I don't see how someone making assumptions about what they cannot know is actually making a statement about themselves. Having to live with myself is a powerful enough incentive for me not to betray my moral code. I'm extremely critical of myself and hold myself to impossible standards that I've failed to live up to many times. As long as I'm not hurting others, learning from mistakes, and not hurting others I don't see a moral disparity. I'm very aware that I may be wrong but if I am I don't see the harm in it. There's a lot about religion I admire and a lot I don't but that's my view and I respect others views. We're all human beings and my views are no more important than anyone else's.
Descriptive language is almost one hundred percent religious. Eg. Water, Sky, Earth, Fire are all elements that were originally identified as a form of deity and everything that derived from them were also a form of deity. Water - rain, river, ocean. Sky - sun, moon, wind. Earth - plants, animals, minerals. Fire - light, heat, lighting The languages of human life develop from describing and discussing matters that began with religious meaning and then evolved into modern parlance.
Christians do not think that there’s a “big man in the sky.” Just in case anyone was wondering.
sure about that?
"What characterizes atheism is the incomplete, imperfect and faulty concept of God" Mario Ferreira dos Santos
When I discuss religion with aethists I jokingly imitate them by saying about myself "silly primitive worshipping the magic man in the sky" to ease tensions, usually works
The entire tension between atheists and theists is overshadowed by the inability to reconcile that neither knows what the other thinks, with what they fear that thought would have as consequences if it was implemented into their own thoughts.
The entire tension between atheists and theists is overshadowed by the inability to reconcile that neither knows what the other thinks, with what they fear that thought would have as consequences if it was implemented into their own thoughts.
During their conversation, I felt Dr. Petereson was exploring and extending his arm for a dance while Dawkins folded his arms and refused to join.
That's such a lovely way to put it, felt the same
Ew
Dawkins hardly disagreed at all he just kept asking “so, what?!” Which is a very good question. So, what? What if the Bible has lots of wisdom in it? What is the next stage?
Dr Peterson was extanding his arm for a dance arount weither bible is scientifically true, Richard was like 'I get your point, there must be there a deep psychological need there, definetly, but ? is is true ? was Jesus born from a virgin really or not ? ' ... so folding his arms isn't really the description of what Dawkins was doing, he did not want to to dance same dance as Peterson, because Peterson don't want to admit he's an atheist with admiration to Christain mythology
@@taoufiqbenallah9029and why would he hes clearly believing that the core memes of the biblical corpus are divine by how deep they are
I had goosebumps the whole way through. Weinstein almost effortlessly bridges the gap between Peterson and Dawkins without missing a beat, or denigrating either.
Truly an 'eyes wide open' scientist.
This was amazing- I feel like I’m back in 2018. I recall the partial recording of the Weinstein/Dawkins discussion. Dawkins was exasperated & the recording doesn’t show the “extended phenotype” portion. But the Dawkins fans were nasty to Weinstein-labeled him a charlatan pop-scientist. This cadre is now the atrophied & backwards ideologues. But Dawkins can’t be too upset, he carried the torch 5 decades ago and others have picked it up.
I love the idea of a new “kosher” law against seed oils etc. this is great.
Yea I thought the original discussion was great and Peterson did a good job finding common ground with Dawkins on the dragons point.
I love Bret, but his idea that ancient solutions are insufficient for modern problems while using Jewish dietary laws as an example just shows that he misunderstands the ancient problem. The problem wasn't health.
My favourite Crossover is Theoretical Physicists and Theologians, they literally speak the same language and use the same philosophical terms (and have had a ton of fruitful conversations). I don't think Dawkins even realizes that the modern Scientific Method came out of Christianity (and Francis Bacon himself spoke about the unknowability problem of empiricism). The fundamental philosophical presuppositions of Science are ultimately Christian ones (and historically 95% of Scientists were Christians), the more Science strays away from Christianity the worse it gets, because if you try to destroy Christianity you destroy Science in the process, this is why so many Atheists say that they 'hate philosophy' or that 'philosophy is useless', because it would force them to confront their worldview on a presuppositional level.
Yes religion and science are two fractals or operating systems in which to simply describe the reality we are observing. Aquinas also a brilliant mind dealt with apologetics. science and religion are not mutually exclusive it's just the mind and ego that prevent atheists from realizing their perspective is just one node in a universe of endless consciousness
Modern science came about in the 1600s, almost 1600 years after Christianity was created… and early scientists were vilified by the church. It was the separation of church and state and the adoption of religion as a personal pursuit that allowed modern science to even take route. Just because cave people created fire, doesn’t mean cave people have some profound understanding of fire and its modern utility…
All of current human knowledge comes out of previous ideas, including religion. Atheist don’t think that religion was not useful to organize societies, distribute moral lessons, establish countries, etc. atheist just believe that religion and god is not real, but humans have flourished believing in useful fictions like Harari has written in Sapiens. That doesn’t mean that you still need to believe in things that were needed in the past.
That Ai that is supposed to be Jordan Peterson actually looks a lot like Tony Hinchcliffe 😂
It really does!
😆😁
I think you meant to say that it looks like a gay Jordan Peterson
It looks like the love child of Tony Hinchcliffe and Konstantin Kisin!
Yeah, Tony Hinchecliffe @@quincyjensen5917
Dawkins created the concept of the meme and then renounced it, which is a big shame.
Dawkins created the concept of the meme? Where are you getting that from?
@ by the end of the book The Selfish Gene
Yes. Dawkins coined and presented the idea of memes. It is widely known.
@@BuddhaReflexfrom his book where he created it? Anyway I also created it independently before I ever heard about him
@@themodfather9382stupid people like you always waste our time.
Some people think "god exists because god's lessons are helpful", this line of reasoning is incorrect for the same reason atheists who think "god doesn't exist therefore his lessons are bad" are wrong. Peterson is an expert on moral truths. This is why Peterson deflects when asked a literal question like "does God exists" by responding with a moral answer like "I act as if god exists." Dawkins is an expert on literal truths. Bret Weinstein, out of these three thinkers, is the only one who can saliently distinguish the difference between literal truth and moral truth, and understand that they have a relationship that isn't as simple as "truth = moral good."
The usefulness of religions is logical evidence that the religious depiction of god is not literal truth. If religion is an extended phenotype, it makes sense why religious rules would have stakes in our personal fulfillment and societal stability, because it's an extension of ourselves and would be naturally selected if it had bad rules. It doesn't make sense why a being far greater than us would care enough to make these rules. A parent analogy doesn't work since we do have evolutionary explanations for why parents care about their offspring. This is an example of materialist atheism having more answers than religion, but unfortunately old school atheists like Dawkins won't adopt this point since he would have to concede that religious doctrine isn't a net negative to society.
The "comments on what the programmer meant" is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. What do you mean it doesn't exist? That's exactly what the Magisterium has been doing for 2000 years.
shhhhh people who are entire tiers of knowledge above you are discussing ideas just be quiet and learn for once
@jacobhealy8376 Lead by example.
Good point. I think however he was thinking more literally like from God himself, or at least the authors who penned it.
@@yeshuadvargas5552 kids will worship the IQ of secular modernist reductionist. When IQ is immaterial. The measure is wisdom therefore I read Aquinas and Augustine. I wonder if these two have
@jakechilton1066 Tragically, it seems not.
Peterson does not speak clearly, if he would just say myths capture important truths about human nature, it would solve the problem. Instead he answers the question of “did the Exodus happen” with “yes, it’s always happening” or “I can’t say.” There are other scholars of myth that don’t have this problem.
It’s probably your problem that you don’t understand the subtleness of arguments. This is the problem is that you need lateral thinking it’s not always literal literal. The world is not literal.
@ no shit, that’s why it’s a myth. Maybe you should find another guru and see what else is out there
Are they myths? Who states that exactly?
The real question will be, is there a difference in believing in God, acting like you believe God exists, and believing and acting out that belief that God exists?
If there is, and one of these proves to stand above the others, it's worth asking why.
The problem with this perspective is that the old timeless ideas that may be outdated aren't conscious things that can be inscribed and proscribed like software notes. Humans are incredible at pattern recognition, but not consciously. For example, if you generate random strings of words using two random algorithms, people can group the words accurately well above chance. The real problem is that when you tell them that there's a pattern and that they should look for the pattern, THEY GET WORSE AT IDENTIFYING THE PATTERN.
"The real problem is that when you tell them that there's a pattern and that they should look for the pattern, THEY GET WORSE AT IDENTIFYING THE PATTERN." That's not a hundred percent accurate if you're referring to the Peter Brugger study I think you are. They gradually eliminated the pattern, and the searchers kept finding the pattern even when it wasn't present, which is why everyone thinks racism is everywhere today, because its actually so close to eliminated we are generating false positives because everyone is primed to look for it.
But it's hard to say if getting worse is just a natural process of shifting from an intuitive function to a sensing one. Where when shifting to the sensing one, you may initially be worse at recognizing, but as you improve your analysis will be more accurate. Where intuition is like a net, and sensing is like a harpoon. The problem with the net is you necessarily reel in things that need not be, and the harpoon has a higher chance of missing the mark. When switching to a harpoon you will miss more, but you will also get better at using the harpoon over time. This is to say that there is no saying whether getting worse at identifying the pattern is permeant loss of accuracy or temporary.
It's very doubtful that man has really changed. It that the old is outdated.
3000 year old proverbs still hold true for example. Which could not be true if we had changed.
Same with the old archetype.stories.
Ad. 17:04 - I think the advantage of a metaphor (like in religious books) is the fact that it can be generalised and used universally across different subdomains of human experience. I get Weinstein's counterargument against Peterson and subscribe to it partly; but precisely the fact that a religion can sufficiently translate the general idea of something being not good for you (through story, metaphor etc.) without going into specifics is what makes it long-lasting. Most of christianity doesn't place specifics above the greater derived meaning that they hold; those specifics are merely props to hold the story/lesson/meaning. That's why you have interpreters of religion; that's the relationship that they're trying to untagle, rightly so. Kocher rules seem to be a bit of a bad example because they're hyper-specific, but there's tons of more general ideas e.g. about how a 'sin' works and what constitutes a sin that a smarter person can distil a greater general meaning from the overspecific nonsense which is inherently contained in every religious text ever. That's the most vital value of any religious text for an atheist; if you start to actually analyse the text and take it seriously as a whole in the first place, then you'll have no problem with distinguishing the irrelevant specifics of the time from general greater truths that absolutely do apply to humanity as a whole to this day. That's what your relationship with these texts should be like. Sure, you can dismiss the whole enterprise spanning hundreds/ thousands of years in one sentence like Dawkins loves to do, just know that you'll be deemed a bit ignorant in the eyes of those who actually swallowed their pride and dug deeper.
Peterson is a charlatan there are lots of great Philosophers who aspire to and recommend different mystical and deeply spiritual experiences. These internet buffoons are grifting. Read Critchlys book on Mysticism or Being and Time. These are genuine ways into this otherly realm which these guys don't offer they just chat shit and make a shit tonne of money for doing it
I'm an atheist who discovered this truth several years ago. The Bible may have some irrelevant specifics, but it's not speaking in specifics, it's speaking in metaphorical generalities that are more accurate, more complete, and more resonant with reality than the entire post-enlightenment philosophical enterprise, which is still fumbling in the dark because secular humanism is myopic, dismisses the world of memetics (spirit) and is therefore devoid of moral content.
Modern psychotherapy has started performing RELIGIOUS EXORCISMS again, they just call them EMDR and changed the words around: "trauma" for "demon", and so on, to appeal to the modern materialist belief paradigm.
Exactly. I mean I think there's an immense amount of value in modern psychotherapy, philosophy etc., Peterson thinks so too btw, I just don't trust anyone who dismisses the Bible as a whole based on mere minutiae and believes that it should be erradicated and replaced by what happened in those fields in the last few decades.
If you think the ancient wisdom of the Bible is not "up-to-date with modern problems," you never really read the Bible. All the problems there are today are there they're just in different forms.
What does it say about animal rights and climate change?
The first thing God makes man do in Genesis 2:15 is to take care of the earth. That pretty much tells you everything. We are to take care of the earth and the animals that God created.
@@nicholascollins4907 So he want us to kill Earth and animals ? What does he say about animals rights exactly ? What rights should they have ? Are they on paar with humans and if they are , does that mean all non vegans are sinners ? If they are not why not ? What about animal pain ? can you please elaborate further with Bible texts ?
@@nicholascollins4907 Also what does the Bible say about CRISPR ? Should we use it to modify humans ? What if we can save the by doing so ? What about AI rights ? Should ai have rights if it will be able to feel pain in 100 years ? Pls elaborate with Bible texts.
If you think taking care of the earth means to kill the earth you’re not a serious person and not worth conversing with. I suggest you read the Bible for yourself. If you can’t see how there are underlying principles that can be applied universally then I can’t help you.
It’s not that Dawkins isn’t listening, it’s that he perceives a different niche of reality, the “down to earth” or experiential niche. He struggles with abstraction which is Peterson’s forte. Classic ISTJ v INFJ dynamic. Look up Carl Jung’s cognitive functions.
ironically it is Dawkins who is the furthest from "down to earth"
it’s ironic because Jesus is the literal Logos incarnate. there is no better pursuit of experiential truth than that of the christian walk. you want to know the truths of the appearent reality you live in? go no further than measuring your own personal experiences and Jesus Christ who literalkly reaches into your life and unsettlingly meets you where you’re at. ironic that the study of evolution and measurable sciences is far more abstract than Faith could ever be….
Peterson believes in the unknowable.
Dawkins accepts there are unknowns, but refuses to believe anything is unknowable.
He's definitely listening. Dawkins is just talking about scientific reality; in a similar way a fundamentalist Christian would claim the Bible is the literal truth. While Peterson is talking about the benefit of metaphorical moral truths.
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” - Thomas Jefferson
Categorizing belief in God as “a being in the sky” is such a smug mischaracterization. We’re still playing ball with 2011 new-atheism “sky daddy” rhetoric? 😅
When I was 14 the Jehovah's Witnesses used to knock on the door and I would debate them for fun. I sounded like Dawkins does today.
I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and was one for 27 years. Dawkin's reasoning is the perfect type to use with them, because they are EXTREMELY literal in their interpretations. They 100% believe that God is watching everyone, at all times; they believe that the flood of Noah was a very real thing that happened ~ 4000 years ago. They believe mankind is only ~ 6000 years old. They are exactly the kind of religious people who should be debated on that level.
I use a Biblical approach. They usually don't actually know what the Bible says.
@@chadparsons50 Some of them definitely do - I was one such person - but their interpretation of the Bible is an odd mix of extreme fundamentalism and broad symbolic interpretation.
How edgy of you!
@@ComradeTrotsky1017 what part of this did you misinterpret as intending to be "edgy"?
Modern computer/evolution bros can’t stop imagining reality as being a reflection of our gadgets rather than our gadgets reflecting reality.
@@Hreodrich When I lay down to sleep, sometimes I dream of a beautiful woman, but I never, ever dream of a cell-phone or computer. I may want to look at a beautiful woman and might, for various reasons, want to use a computer to simulate seeing a real woman, but there is simply no situation when I dream of the computer. The technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Evolution bro?
Wtf is even that?
Technology is not values neutral
@ I agree.
excellent observation. autism is literally one of the biggest problems in the world now... literalist/"rationalist" thinking... lack of nuance or abstraction or flexibility...
An extended conversation about religion between Bret and Jordan every few months would do wonders to inspire the kind of modern "software update" Bret says is necessary. Dawkins is certainly not capable of listening and having those conversations, but Bret is.
Bret Weinstein is a serial liar and an embarrassment to science. He and his brother Eric both are such huge bushitters that several high-profile individuals have fallen for their scam. But once you learn how they operate, it gets easy to see what a waste of time any discussion with them is.
The software update is in the bible we just need to hit agree and start the install.
@@CramRockets - The Church used to believe the universe revolved around the Earth,. Christians have used the Bible to justify slavery and misogyny. So, interpretation updates are part of the Software updates, and that includes Science helping fill in gaps the Bible doesn't exactly spell out. Any such truth is a reflection of God and His Truth in Creation. ( When Christians preach that the Bible has "all the answers you need" it is partly true, and obviously also false. Not a scientific manual, though Genesis is a book that contains scientific information. )
Yes if someone is skeptical find someone who isn't.
Eric might be even better suited for those conversations...he loves playing with ideas.
Dawkins will never hear anyone but himself.
Information river? Where does information come from?
That’s a much more interesting question when not asked rhetorically
That’s a much more interesting question when not asked rhetorically
Much like a real river, the water in the river doesn't flow "from" somewhere in a pure strict sense. Much of the water in a river is the result of hydrological forces that cause water to enter and leave the surrounding soil. Rivers tend to form from the seeping of aquifers into streams, which eventually converge as tributaries. Very few rivers spring directly from true springs, and just bubble out of the grounf
Peterson is dishonest and has a huge ego. He got completly exposed by Dillahunty and Harris.
Peterson has absolutely no clue what he is talking about in terms of this debate and I am not even sure he is Religious.
Mathematical truth exists. Moral truth exists. Jesus came to bring light to this world 🔥✝️😇🙏
#1 Are morals objective?
#2 Are there objective moral duties?
#3 Is it immoral not to do an objective moral duty?
#4 Does god do the objective moral duties?
#5 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#6 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#7 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#8 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#9 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
@@macmac1022 #1 Morality is just as objective as mathematics. They are both branches of the same tree.
#2 Yes, there are objective moral duties. Number one is we must struggle to survive, just like all life on Earth.
#3 Yes, it is immoral not to do an objective moral duty. If we don't struggle to stay alive, we will not.
#4 Yes, God has fulfilled his moral obligation. We exist as a result
#5 No, that persons actions are not moral. If he can save the child, he should
#6 Yes, I am saving the child
#7 It is an act of justice to punish innocent people to stop an even greater evil from infecting the whole world with hate and violence
#8 I would stop the child from being harmed
#9 You read the text wrong. Apes came out of the trees perusing animals on the african plains, they ate mushrooms (not an apple) growing on the feces of the animals they were tracking, natural selection selected for apes with brains who could withstand the mind expanding outcomes. They were not poisoned, they were burdened with knowledge of the future and the moral obligation to respond accordingly. They died spiritually knowing they were inherently evil, and began wearing clothes to hide the shame of their genetically imposed sexual immorality. Those apes are your grandmama and grandpapa. The story is not fiction, it is an accurate depiction of the transition from animal to human, it is objective moral truth.
@@macmac1022 #1 Morality is just as objective as mathematics. They are both branches of the same tree.
#2 Yes, there are objective moral duties. Number one is we must struggle to survive, just like all life on Earth.
#3 Yes, it is immoral not to do an objective moral duty. If we don't struggle to stay alive, we will not.
#4 Yes, God has fulfilled his moral obligation. We exist as a result
#5 No, that persons actions are not moral. If he can save the child, he should
#6 Yes, I am saving the child
#7 It is an act of justice to punish innocent people to stop an even greater evil from infecting the whole world with hate and violence
#8 I would stop the child from being harmed
#9 You read the text wrong. Apes came out of the trees perusing animals on the african plains, they ate mushrooms (not an apple) growing on the feces of the animals they were tracking, natural selection selected for apes with brains who could withstand the mind expanding outcomes. They were not poisoned, they were burdened with knowledge of the future and the moral obligation to respond accordingly. They died spiritually knowing they were inherently evil, and began wearing clothes to hide the shame of their genetically imposed sexual immorality. Those apes are your grandmama and grandpapa. The story is not fiction, it is an accurate depiction of the transition from animal to human, it is objective moral truth.
@@macmac1022 #1 Morality is just as objective as mathematics. They are both branches of the same tree.
#2 Yes, there are objective moral duties. Number one is we must struggle to survive, just like all life on Earth.
#3 Yes, it is immoral not to do an objective moral duty. If we don't struggle to stay alive, we will not.
#4 Yes, God has fulfilled his moral obligation. We exist as a result
#5 No, that persons actions are not moral. If he can save the child, he should
#6 Yes, I am saving the child
#7 It is an act of justice to punish innocent people to stop an even greater evil from infecting the whole world with hate and violence
#8 I would stop the child from being harmed
#9 You read the text wrong. Apes came out of the trees perusing animals on the African plains, they ate mush. .rooms (not an apple) growing on the feces of the animals they were tracking, natural selection selected for apes with brains who could withstand the mind expanding outcomes. They were not poisoned, they were burdened with knowledge of the future and the moral obligation to respond accordingly. They died spiritually knowing they were inherently evil, and began wearing clothes to hide the shame of their genetically imposed sexual immorality. Those apes are your grandmama and grandpapa. The story is not fiction, it is an accurate depiction of the transition from animal to human, it is objective moral truth.
@@macmac1022 #1 Morality is just as objective as mathematics. They are both branches of the same tree.
#2 Yes, there are objective moral duties. Number one is we must struggle to survive, just like all life on Earth.
#3 Yes, it is immoral not to do an objective moral duty. If we don't struggle to stay alive, we will not.
#4 Yes, God has fulfilled his moral obligation. We exist as a result
#5 No, that persons actions are not moral. If he can save the child, he should
#6 Yes, I am saving the child
#7 It is an act of justice to punish innocent people to stop an even greater evil from infecting the whole world with hate and violence
#8 I would stop the child from being harmed
#9 You read the text wrong. Apes came out of the trees perusing animals on the african plains, they ate mush. .rooms (not an apple) growing on the feces of the animals they were tracking, natural selection selected for apes with brains who could withstand the mind expanding outcomes. They were not poisoned, they were burdened with knowledge of the future and the moral obligation to respond accordingly. They died spiritually knowing they were inherently evil, and began wearing clothes to hide the shame of their genetically imposed sexual immorality. Those apes are your grandmama and grandpapa. The story is not fiction, it is an accurate depiction of the transition from animal to human, it is objective moral truth.
I take issue with Bret's claim that the idea of hell is a powerful motivator. As a believer who takes hell seriously I beg to differ. All this will produce is fear and fear is a very bad long term motivator simply because we aren't capable of feeling fear all the time without dying or going insane, and we would need to feel it all the time in order for the fear to be an effective deterrent. In my youth when I was in a room with a naked girl who wanted me fear was that farthest thing from my mind. This is why it is said the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" not the middle of wisdom and not the end of wisdom.
It was only when I was given a positive vision of the glorious and good creation that I could become that I was able to forgo self gratification and pursue goodness.
Bret is very intelligent but it's hard to get things right when you are talking about people whos beliefs you don't fully understand. You can't fully understand unless you have tried very hard for many years to live according to religious principles.
Hell can be a metaphor. We need both positive and negative motivators. Something to run towards, and something to run from. Having both helps us to achieve our vision. In a completely nonreigious way, we need to understand how bad things could get and what the cost of not developing ourselves to our fullest potential is.
@@podcastfarm But a metaphor for what exactly? I'm not asking for the sake of being pedantic (one of my most egregious faults) It's a question of real significance. In the situation you describe, as well as a religious context, hell is a reality, you can call it a state of mind and or being if you will. It's urgent to avoid it because it's concrete. Wouldn't a metaphor imply that the reality is different from the idea?
Did you bang the girl? What was your vision?
@@47StormShadowa metaphor for when you’re pooping and it’s not coming out and you keep pushing and pushing and OH JESUS HELP ME. I swear god….help me poop and I’ll change my life. Then you feel the pain….THE HOLE STRETCHES! Aaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh l!!!!!!! This is it. One great push. Sweating, straining…..
RELEASE!
HALLELUJAH!
Rapture….
Dawkins knows that his life work has collapsed like a house of cards due to advances in understanding fine tuning, genetic codes, and combinatorial inflation.
The key for understanding the disharmony of the Peterson and Dawkins discussion I think is captured in Iain McGillchrists work.
Particularly as laid out in his book "The Master and his Emissary".
I don't know how relevant the invention of "fuzzy logic" is to the discussion but it seems to me that hyper rational proclivity from Dawkins has it's advantages but the more imprecise yet more complex relaying of information can be through symbolism because absolutes can force a delusion if the question you're exploring is in the grey area.
We understand things differently through the way we employ the hemispheres of the brain. That fuzzy side according to McGillchrist is more sophisticated than the "rational" side.
For me Peterson speaks both "languages" yet is trying hard to convey his understanding through the hemisphere Dawkins is predominantly focused on.
So I suspect Brett is on the money that Dawkins needs to listen a little more carefully rather than dismissing Peterson as Being drunk on symbolism.
Even coming up with that slogan is a sign he's committing the same sin he accuses theists of doing by dismissing an idea based on a particular belief as he did in his book "The God delusion".
I don't think a converging of minds between the two would be favourable to the faithful in any shape or form but from a scientific perspective we might get closer to understanding ourselves...
It’s almost as if it’s the only way that people think, and that’s what Dawkins believes that we all think the same way and settle it the same way.
@@jamesestrella5911Dawkins is someone who ignores the assumptions and beliefs we make to begin the journey of scientific discovery, ironically hiding behind the altruistic idea of Truth. In other words, incapable of having meaningful philosophical ideation and limiting himself to experimental determinism. If you can’t reason about the abstract ideology of your own mind, you have little hope to reason about others.
When J.P. would say “well what _is_ truth, really?” That’s to say, what is truth to _you_ ? The scientific determinism of perceived reality? That’s a religion, by every sense of the word.
Peterson is a poet, Dawkins, non fiction...
@@nadialindley7696 Peterson is non-fiction, a philosophic and psychological meta-analysis of story and meaning, Dawkins is a 10-page science direct journal summary blog.
@@nadialindley7696 You're a long way off. Try and understand it from this perspective...Dawkins could easily use his dismissive argument the same way with the concept of money. He certainly believes in money because he cannot function in human society without it. The value of money isn't real in any rational way in the same manner the value of God isn't real in Dawkins mind. Yet value is attributed to it across cultures and it's a vital part of what makes up civilisation.
Refusing to study or aknowlege it based on a limited concept of "real" doesn't make you a scientist.
In this way Peterson embodies what it is to be a scientist than Dawkins.
Some of the hypothesises that Peterson is working on might be a little fanciful or far fetched, but without the exploration of the phenomena or in Dawkins case the willingness to explore there's no discovery, only ignorance... Ironically it's the same argument Dawkins used against religion in his book "The God Delusion" against the idea of religion...
Man, Bret did such a great job explaining all of this. He’s such a sensitive and super intelligent intellect. One of my all time favs.
It is a profoundly strange phenomenon that unconscious atoms coalesced into a human form who then sit on podcasts and ponder their own existence. Seems like a stretch to say that that is an unguided process in such a violent universe.
The simulation theory for me is the most probable explanation for this age old question, and also explains other strange phenomena that we observe in our reality, the most obvious one being quantum physics. This makes a lot more sense to me than a so called all loving creator god, who just so happened to create a universe with an unbelievable amount of pain and suffering for beings that very often did nothing to deserve it. There is no good explanation from the Christian community for the problem of suffering and there never will be, because it simply doesn't make any sense why god would allow such an immense amount of suffering for the beings he apparently designed in his image and loves unconditionally
God didn’t create clones of himself - he created children with their own free will. When you have a child, you may wish that they would never suffer, but it is a natural part of the process of developing and growing as a human being.
The Christian answer to why there is suffering in the mortal world is that they believe an immortal, eternal one will follow. This world is like childhood where we are shaped and developed to be ready for the next. Realists believe that this is the only life we have which is why they see so much suffering as unconscionable.
@@lovaboy57 Christians come up with all kinds of answers for the problem of suffering, none of them make any sense and the free will explanation certainly doesn't do it for me either.
Isn't there free will in heaven? Of course there is. Yet there is no suffering in heaven. Why not just create a universe that is already like that realm and ditch the needless immeasurable amounts of suffering in the first place?
My sister is severely autistic and will never be able to live a normal life, it's incredibly sad and has caused my family immense pain. What did she do to get screwed so bad by god? What's up with holocaust, the armenian genocide, etc etc. Needless amounts of suffering that is completely horrifying that is just completely unnecessary that this god surely could prevent, and in fact knew would happen before hand since he is supposedly all knowing. Nevermind the whole you go to hell for eternity thing if you're a non believer. You're going to need to come up with something way better than that to justify all of this.
@@soma_182
Why is suffering a negative to you?
@@soma_182 Do you think the Big Bang answers this to your heart's desire?
Fantastic conversation! Damn I loved that
What Bret Weinstein should take into consideration is that Christianity relativized the law and repudiated the dietary laws, thus accommodating the religion to modern times. It appears to be a more modern concept because religious law is adaptable. The drawback is fragmentation. Protestantism has a plenitude of sects with laws of their own.
Wouldn't evolution have this problem too in some way
Christianity also has no belief whatsoever in “a being in the sky” whatever that’s supposed to mean. Shows a huge lack of knowledge on the subject on Brett’s part
I don’t think fragmentation is as bad as people think, it may even be an advantage. So long as the original work is not altered. It allows for flexibility, and even less corruption due to monopoly.
If you don’t like the Catholic Church, but don’t want to toss the whole thing out, you have the Lutherans. That’s not quite your cup of tea? Eastern Orthodox. So on and so forth.
I’d have to really think that out, but I at least don’t believe fragmentation is a ground to dismiss the whole thing, which is typically the case that is made.
“Jung’s equal, at least.”
you are a good & generous brainiac and one of my favorites on the tube.
So if religion is an extension of phenotype, so is language. And so are ideas. And so are abstractions. Culture in its broadest sense. Culture as an easier to modificate adaptative tool than genes.
And so is technology (our spider web)
There's gotta be a name for the phenomenon where a specialist in a subject decides that nearly everything that exists can be framed in that speciality.
Everything is math, everything is physics, football is religion and culture is extended phenotype. And so on and so on.
Its like the meme about the guy who has only ever seen the film Boss Baby.
@@j8000 "Hammer and nail phenomenon"? " Everything looks like a nail to the man with a hammer".
@@j8000I also relate that to people applying their source of pleasure or happiness to everyone as if that's their goal too. It's like everyone experiences a high and then concludes that if everyone just acquired the same high they would be happy and fulfilled. It can be wealth, or physical strength, or having kids, or drugs, or religious epiphany etc etc
@@j8000 Intelligence at least partly consists of finding relations between things and/or between ideas. Whether you like it or not. The guy(s) who will eventually find a way to relate general relativity and quantum physics will become the most famous scientist ever.
This is incredible!! I'm so glad this clip popped up. New sub, instant... Well fan isn't the right word. Very interested in listening to your conversations
The problem is, Dawkins is one of the most revered and respected Evolutionary Biologists on existence and Bret (who is famous not for his academic credentials but his bravery on Social issues) keeps trying to drag the man into a conversation he isnt interested in. Dawkins and JBPs recent conversation highlighted this perfectly....two very intelligent men just talking past each other......not all conversations are meant to happen
yes but adaptation is a prime precursor for intelligence and dawkins rigidly clings to his thesis like he's as zealous as any religious acolyte.. and him being so "uninterested" lends to there being no evolution and progress. He's become the evolutionary dead-end he describes by proxy.. and a modern day example of "the science is settled"
well, yeah.. until it is not. but i guess he isn't the man to carry that torch. His goose is cooked.
He could talk like an intelligent man, but if he only recognises his own intelligence and those who match his conclusions and deliberately strives to not understand other facets then his intelligence is used in an anti-intelligent manner, as a gatekeeper. And ironically he uses his deep faith in his position to do so, while simultaneously being terrified of faith and how it is used by others.
@weegieboard8432 have you watched his debate with Bret?
Judging by what you have written there, I feel like you don't know much about Dawkins body of work or have watched him in many conversations?
This man is 83 years old, he absolutely is not the future of Evolutionary biology but he is still tackling some of the fundamental issues and there's no one more qualified to decide what the next problem he should like into is going to be. He's not dogmatically clinging on to anything, his time is precious. Should Roger Penrose waste time discussing the square root of 2 with Terence Crawford?
@@martinjnagy yes but tell me honestly there isn't a fundamental difference in approach from penrose to dawkins.. Penrose IS STILL that guy, and is older than Dawkins.
Infintely curious, never a settled science guy.
Dawkins is a giant, but gravity always wins even against giants. but it's his arrogance that stoops him earlier than he has to be and takes him out of being in the same breath as pensrose in terms of scientifically minded purity of pursuit. He is ironically far more dogmatic, and he is ascerbic to percieved idiocy which infers huge huge ego involvement
@@weegieboard8432 Penrose is a tier above I do agree. And I'll also agree there is a pretty big ego with Dawkins. But I don't think he's closed minded in his own field....he is just content handling unknown problems close to his field of expertise.
If you haven't watched his debate with Bret, I do highly recommend it....I don't believe Bret is in the same league Dawkins....couldn't believe what he was saying about Mathematical Models
@@martinjnagy yeah i've watched the debate you refer to. Was a frustrating watch, but I honestly don't think it was had in good faith as a means of being in service to and understanding "truth" by both parties..
I understand the idea of Dawkins staying within his wheelhouse and i think in some ways there is huge merit to that.
an example of it's merit is:
When i think of Perterson's geopolitical/historical takes it really makes me cringe a bit. But Brett isn't aiming at discussing geometry or astrophysics with him- what they are discussing are at least adjacent if not wholly relevant in terms of topic scope.
I'm reminded of a discussion i have had with a close friend, where he watches and sends me flat earther's being debunked and being dunked on. He loves it.
But i can't help but think, science is the pursuit of questioning and approximating most likely explanations for phenomena in our world, always with an open ended invitation to ask more questions and their pursuit- to callously dismiss the attempts of people that do so(however wrong they may be) without any good faith non-personal argumentation isn't in service to greater understanding being reached by all, or in service of the devotion to pursuit of truth these questions represent.. it's anathema to it. all it does is shit on a potential aspirant to the truthful pursuit and all it serves is the ego and the associated feelings of relative superiority of the individual condemning and shaming.
That isn't science. it's a type of tribalism and attempt at ostracisation which is counter-productive to the stated goals of the community. it's simply sad, bullying and deeply self righteous egoism.
it's the kind of thing that facilitates Anthony Fauci exclaming that HE IS SCIENCE.
No. It's more likely you are narcissistic and sadistic than the living embodiment of science/truth.
Dawkins has too much of that in him, and as a consequence becomes a barrier to the development of the very thing he helped shape because he has dark ego involvement.
And i am familiar with Dawkins work, he writes well and I loved reading his stuff before being introduced to some of the more toxic aspects of his nature/public persona. it doesn't take away his achievements in my eyes, but it does preclude him from having a stake in the future of the pursuit of truth. just mho
Such a important insight! Thank you
Not rly
looking at religion as a tech tree is really impressing them.
For the rest of us who have played Civilisation, this is nothing new
Very enjoyable chat, thanks.
Eric spent 80% of this explaining why ancient wisdom is how we know which memes are valid, and then contradicted that 100% at the end. 🤓
absolutely typical
LOL😂
....Bret?
Not really. He just thinks religion is hueristic, and in that way needs updating. It’s better IMO than the new atheist assertion is is entirely useless, even dangerous.
Maybe I am missing something, but I see this idea as really shortsighted, or blatantly wrong. His comment about uranium enrichment, which he used years ago on Rogan I think for instance.
Maybe because he comes from a Jewish background and Judaism is much more literal and detailed. Some 600 something commandments of exactly what not to do.
I’ve heard Jews make an argument disavowing any Biblical case against abortion because it wasn’t explicitly listed in the commandments.
Christianity on the other hand seems to have this addendum feature built into it, the Holy Spirit playing a key role.
Peter and his Vision of the unclean food is an example. A huge revelation. Oh, it’s not what we eat that makes us unclean but what we produce.
A modern day Peter might say. It’s not whether we enrich Urianiun or not, but what we do with it, ie produce energy for the world, or blow up cities.
@wib6044 wat
Robert is a intelligent interviewer, this conversation with Bret is great. I hadn't heard about Thomas theorem, thank you. for making good content.
Richard Dawkins is one of the most simple minded “highly educated” people to ever exist.
First video seen from this chanel because of Dr Weinstein. Despite a few logical loopholes I feel left with awesome questions I never dare to ask myself. Thank you!!
Also to note, dawkins doesn't get mindfulness either. Sam harris guided him through it on his podcast and all of a sudden dawkins didnt like it and saw no point to it. That's not skepticism that's cynicism.
That's science.. talk all over the place all you want, what matters, is it true ?
Ignorance. That also explains his huge ego. I can like some of the things he says. I do not like him. And my interest in his ideas goes hand in hand with the person.
Maybe, though having listened to Harris on a number of occasions I'm tempted to think his mindfulness is about as profound as the profundity of thought you have after smoking a few bowls. You think you're being deep, but are you really? He seems just entrapped by his biases as anyone.
@@taoufiqbenallah9029 Science is not like that. That is his ego, not the scientific method.
@@Solus-qn3ur
If it's not true, it's rubbish.
I thought this was aout Tony Hinchcliffe and RFK Jr. Based on the thumbnail
The idea that God is a man in the sky is way too dismissive. God is the fabric of life itself.
The Force, you may say
A heavenly father... ie a man in the sky
Thank you gentlemen.. Dr Weinstein .. always a pleasure to hear your voice. How do we find a balance between the pressure for upholding what’s “best” for the greater good and the need to maintain the individual’s “boundaries “ or “right” … it’s enmeshed.. but it is difficult to make an informed decision if the group does not have all of the relevant information to make choices in (specifically American) local ecosystem. Gratitude
I used to think pretty highly of Brett but increasingly I keep noticing that he's not as vigorously rational as he likes to present himself. He's constantly speaking as if he has a bird's eye perspective on what is going on and understands how it could be improved. But if you listen closely he says a lot of clever sounding nonsense.
For example he claims Dawkins can't/won't see how culture is the same thing as an anatomical adaptation. Sounds nice except it's a bad equivalence. Culture is a behavioral adaptation akin walking upright or speaking and I'm pretty sure Dawkins would have no problem agreeing with that.
And why would future historians have a hard time writing about the current times? We record more than in any previous time. Short of some sort of catastrophe there will be an overabundance of information about the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
And those historians will deem Jordan Peterson a great philosopher? Why? What exactly has Peterson written that would even qualify as original in the philosophical realm? He's a self help guru. And don't get me wrong, he seems to genuinely help a lot of people in that endeavor. Which is great. But that doesn't make him a great or even good philosopher. This is at best him propping up a friend.
And what is his big claim that will get Dawkins' knickers in even more of a twist? That our first understanding of something is more metaphorical than it is literal. That's sort of vague. But he goes on the clarify that he's referring to humanities advancement of understanding as we learn more about the way the world works. For example, before we understood what caused malaria we thought swampy air caused it. Still not seeing anything I would expect Dawkins to disagree with. But then he throws the gobbledygook in by claiming that the assertion that swampy air causes malaria "isn't exactly wrong". That's false and it demonstrates exactly what the problem with religion is. Saying "You're more likely to get malaria near swamps." or "Malaria is caused by swampy air." are not the same thing and it's always preferable to understand the prior than believe the later. And Brett then goes on to say as much. So I'm left confused about what exactly he wishes Dawkins would come around to understanding. Everything Brett says here boils down to "I really wish Dawkins would just agree with me. But I can't convince him because he's gotten too old to see the wisdom of my ideas."
I believe you confused youtube comment box for Microsoft word, the first is better for comments the second for writing books
@@BernardoSantoseCastro 🤣 Yep. He's fanficing hard with that booklet he wrote.
Nah, i appreciate this type of comment.
"what exactly he wishes Dawkins would come around to understanding" I think he partially answers this at 4:28 - 4:40.
I think they’re operating on two different resolutions of analysis. Of course Dawkins wouldn’t disagree that human cultural development has a biological/evolutionary basis, what he would object to is the appropriateness of the application of the Darwinian framework as an explanation to these kind of problems. As an analogue - if we could keep track of every single particle state then perhaps these phenomena can be broken down into a physical or mathematical explanation. But we can’t, the same way the phenomena are too complex to apply a simple evolutionary explanation towards. Of course there are evolutionary factors at play but the framework is not at the right level of resolution to be useful and in fact can be misleading
Dawkins sounds like a bit of a baby tbh as far as not wanting Brett to moderate.
Dawkins has a huge ego and ignorant. That was my first impression of him when i saw him years ago.
Lollipop 🍭 for you, sir 😊 😋 🤗.
I think he’s quite the intelligent intellectual.
@@hamster4618
First off, its hamPster. Secondly, Dawkins is a simpleton for plebians.
☝️🤓
@Nah_Bohdi So is Peterson. But that's ok if that's where you're at.
@@Nah_Bohdi what do you mean “it’s HamPster”?
This was an absolutely phenomenal conversation and the descriptions of religious pieces being a technology is excellent. When I tried to describe to a religious friend the difference between balanced religious people and balanced atheists, I drew a circle on a board and filled in a small section and called it 'Science" and then in the big section I wrote "God." And I then said over time, this will happen, and then started filling in the small science space so it expanded. It's not technically that it's overwriting God, since nobody knows what God is, but it's our conscious explanation for the unknown, and for consequence. I then erased God, and put "Unknown" and then said "Congratulations, Atheists and you believe the same thing, you just have different place-holders.
Bret brought up Kosher laws with pork being out of date because we don’t worry about trichinosis.
99% of pork sold is from pigs fed gmo soy/corn and has a high omega-6 to omega-3 ratio which is inflammatory. Many pigs are fed actual excrement.
And over a decade ago scientists put mouse dna into pigs. They "promised" they didn't put that into the food supply...
What else should I cut?
U tube hid my comment that mad Sc1entists put m0use dee en ay into p1gs, then "promised" they didn't add it to the f00d sup1y...
that is why you choose the brands that have certificates on what animals are being fed.
@@lovelife1867 Or you could just be consistent with Judaism Islam and how Christianity is actually supposed to be in the Bible, yet in all honesty whatever flack Muslims & Jews get they are FARRRRR more sincere in their faith with God than Christians, many Christians will even say eating pork is not wrong, yet In the Old Testament, Leviticus 11:7 declared pork unclean, even then Christians will basically manipulate the word of God to appease their temptations.
This is excellent. Thank you for this.
When Dawkins said something along the lines of his and Peterson's brains are just different, so he can't understand what Peterson is talking about because he cares more about how the lion came to be rather than the memetic symbolism of a dragon across Human history Peterson is explaining because dragons aren't "real" broke my heart.
Dawkins is actually closed minded, which is ironic.
But dragons aren't real.
@arifsaleem5467 No shit; it's called allegory.
@@panzer00
Yeah, but dragons aren't real and it's not an allegory, it's a fact.
@arifsaleem5467 holy shit youre obtuse. The "dragon" is literally an allegory.
But the concept of the “dragon” was developed within the Phenotype across millenia and across different populations to convey information symbolically. That is a fact. Discussing the significance of it culturally or even religiously as it pertains to the culture you live in is worthwhile.
So glad to hear this concept spread, that the prohibitions are there to protect us from adjacent opaque threats.
Totally agree that it is in need of updating, so glad to see the trajectory that Brett has been on.
Along with James Lindsay one of my favorite post-academy intellectual giants
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Look at the mess we are in in the U.S. because people ignore this meme. P.S. I am not religious.
Let me add that Dawkins never accepted to debate guys like Michael Behe. He seems like he would never put the Darwinian doctrine at least in the narrow sense at risk
It's not that he's not listening, it's just that he doesn't think God and everything related to that are true, a fact. He demonstrated that he fully understands what Jordan proposed about the Bible, but he just doesn't agree that there really is a God, a virgin, miracles and things like that. He accepts the social function of religion.
Yes that much is clear but Peterson I think has had more to add at times
@@ianinkster2261Peterson doesn't help himself with his being overly loquacious.
Dawkins doesn’t get it at all. He literally thinks spirituality is beneath him. He thinks religion not being true makes it not worth considering. Weinstein is unintentionally admitting his own limitations here (any any other anti-religion scientist): religion is a brilliant and powerful evolutionary advantage - but I won’t use it. This attitude is actually captured readily within Christianity. It is pride. The Bible teaches very well how pride holds you back. In the end, Brett and Dawkins are both limited scientists due to their own pride.
@@benvoiles9166 I think religion is holding us back. We have people who believe in flat earth and try and get evolution taken out of schools, and in the extreme, people killing each other because of religion. And I find christians and muslims have a really hard time answer some of my simple moral questions, would you like to see if you can?
Brett is the one who is not listening. Dawkins agrees with Peterson on the benefits of believing in a supernatural realm, he just doesn't believe that that realm exists. Wanting there to be and that realm actually existing, are two different things entirely. Dawkins knows the difference and Brett and Jordan apparently do not.
I learned something new from this video! Thank you!
It sounds like you've both read Whitehead without reading Whitehead. Just in case I'm right...read his trilogy 1. Science and the Modern World. 2. Process and Reality 3. The Adventure of Ideas
That's weird; I was just thinking about Whitehead when I read this. I was just rereading AoI a few days ago.
Brilliant breakdown by Brett. Have a new and deeper understanding of memes and religion.
Language game cannot be same as scientific conversation.
It necessarily is though
Scientific conversation is steeped in language game.
Great conversation!
Brett was onto something talking about the kosher laws of the Torah - but like too many modern commentators he mistakes them for just being a primitive science.
No doubt avoiding undercooked pork and washing your hands have some health benefits. But if one looks deeper into the Christian tradition (start maybe with patristic commentary on Mark 7, Acts 10, Gal 2 and 1 Cor 8) he would find the significance goes way beyond food safety. The kosher laws are dealing with purity and discernment generally.
Of course you don’t want to pollute your body with filth and parasites. How much more should you not want to pollute your mind with obscenity, or pollute your soul with evil speech and actions? The first is given so that once understood it can be used to illustrate the second. And we know the first really has validity, it’s not arbitrary. So the second becomes more credible.
Brett still has some bias against religion. That came out in his conversation with Jonathan Pageau - which had something of the same dynamic as Peterson/Dawkins. Even though Brett can (unlike Dawkins) acknowledge religion as a valid adaptation, he insists it’s an obsolete one. But this is because he’s only grasping it at the surface level, like “don’t eat dirty things.”
I mean, going beyond food safety is an adaption on an adaption. It illustrates what he's saying rather than undermining it. Plus, understanding that mechanism allows you too understanding the relevance even if we change pork to seed oils for modern practicality.
I love the point you made about the food laws, etc. of the Torah/old testament being used as illustrations to show how much more important purity of the spirit is.
It wasn't until I read your comment that I made the connection.
But the ancient Hebrews were the ones who precisely polluted themselves with evil actions with their genocidal attacks on neighboring tribes.
5:08 wouldn't the simplest explanation be that it is true?
I see that everyone attacked Richard Dawkins for not having it but you gotta understand his point of view. Jordan Peterson is a man who said he would take 40 hours to respond to the question "do you believe this happened?" He is a man who loves to go around the subject without answering using bunch of fancy words. He lives in a fantasy world, that's why he's talking about dragons and stuff. Dawkins is a realist. He is not delusional. How can they agree on anything? It's a total waste of time.
The reason Jordon takes so long is that he views that question as a vehicle to cheapen the meaning the biblical text holds. Essentially it’s a trap, an honest trap made out of curiosity, but if he answers either yes or no, it has a likelihood to either lessen the perceived strength he holds or his argument hold and completely ignores the points he’s trying to make, but not answering directly can also have that problem, so it’s just a rhetorical catch 22.
"he lives in a fantasy world talking about dragons and stuff"
Eesh man, I don't know how to tell me that it makes me sad that you think at that level without sounding like a jerk.
Such a good conversation
Richard Dawkins is a wonderful teacher, to children also. those old seminars for younger people were so great. all I know is IF Dawkins is on the side of the green climate change and woke nonsense then hes lost me entirely. Peterson can be a bit anal on some things. But I can agree with Dawkins on his agnostic view, its the default view and so for a Darwinian he cant see further but he has good reason for that as far as he is concerned.
So Dawkins is on the side of science and for that he lost you? This is really confusing.
He's not woke. Dawkins goes along with the ABC of climate change, but he's not all that belligerent on the subject
@@ChauvinistTroll People are not "on the side of science", that is noncence..,sciense is a tool that can be used correct and as we have seen during covid incorrect.
@@Jannette-mw7fg Since is the pursue of truth through observation, experimentation and testing of evidence - its not a choice based on how it makes you feel.
I have no idea what you're talking about covid - and this is already a huge red flag about your stance on science.
@@ChauvinistTroll picking sides is not scientific. Also science relies on the assumption that "observations of past behavior tell us something about future behavior". The assumption is not scientific at all, merely an assumption. You believe in scientism (the believe that everything can be explained through materialistic science, and only through materialistic science)
I have great admiration for both men. Dawkins work is nothing short of revolutionary & Peterson's psycho-analytical revelations of symbiology & culture really capture the essence of Dawkins' meme metaphor. I have to thank Bret for articulating thoughts I too have pondered.
Fascinating conversation. The truth is the Bible has many many programmer notes. Each generation adds to them and discovers past notes that need revising. It's the text's ultimate durability that is one of its most compelling attributes.
In time we will understand more of Carl Yung. His insight is gnostic, a knowing from within. I’m a huge fan of Dawkins, both men help us have a deeper understanding of what we truly are. Unfortunately, Dawkins conscience bias is not allowing room for those aspects of reality that can’t be measured. He needs to explore dmt and find out how close he is to the truth. We are on the home stretch, conversations like these are so valuable. Thank you gentlemen!
I am a bit too dumb to follow the points being made here. I'll stick with Hegel.
😄🥰😇
Hegel is awful. Following his philosophy is what has led us to the decline of civilization we are currently in, where technology is rising but life expectancy is falling. The interminable conflict inspired by Hegel's flawed philosophy has proven to be a disaster.
@@patrickbarnes9874 people who misunderstood hegel caused the decline... bro was ahead of his time. the point is not to take everything he says as gospel, but distill his core message and you will realize how profound his thought was. Hell Carl Jung formed alot of his ideas based on Hegel. That was why he called Hegel a psychologist masquerading as a philosopher.
This was really not a difficult conversation, lol.
@@PAVI.MarketplaceNope; Hegel was a crank who placed the ultimate locus of understanding within the human mind. The "divine spark of consciousness that creates the world", i.e. human perception creates reality, i.e. what you sincerely believe is, actually, true.
This internalizing of truth without reference to external causal factors has led to heinous moral disasters like communism, Lysenkoism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, and non-medicalized trans self-identitarianism.
Peterson is trying to understand Jung...Joseph Campbell is really the greatest mind of modern times...
I was an atheist for 48 years. Listening to Sam Harris discuss free will convinced me there must be a god.
please explain. Sam says there is no freewill.
@@Sal3600 Exactly. That is correct. I find the idea that free will doesn't exist to be abhorrent.
this is the smartest thing I've heard him out anyone say on this topic yet. perfect
It's fun how he says “materialistic, darwinian view of reality” as if it was just an opinion equivalent to the nonsense the others spew.
You dont know what any of that means, and you sound like Dawkins, meaning uoure acting like a psychopath and are cognitively atrophying your ability to see beyond your own ego.
But it IS an opinion that’s true, except on the questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. We are made of material stuff but matter isn’t all that there is, contrary to materialist opinion on reality.
Nonsense is on a spectrum.
Actually, materialism has never been proven true. Consciousness is the only thing anyone has experienced, and it's impossible to step outside of consciousness to prove that something exists independently of consciousness. So yes, it is just an unproven opinion.
Another close minded simpleton scoffing at things that can't see or even grasp an understanding concept! Oh the irony.
I love it. Bret gets it! Jung actually anticipated this problem when writing about the dilemma of the modern man.
The map is not the territory.The word is not the object. I think therefore I seem to be.
Someone's been listening to Bernardo Kastrup? ;)
Don't confuse the dashboard of dials for the view outside the plane, as he beautifully puts it.
I used to get annoyed in university with people doing this... people confuse the model of the world for the world itself...
Yes, you can represent the world mathematically or geometrically... but confusing your model of the world for the world itself or for itseld underlying fabric is just intellectual arrogance.
The model of the physical atom is just that... a model. It doesnt mean the world is literally made up of atoms or that atoms literally exist in some fundamental sense... they are just 1 model for understanding and explaining what is going on/what we are doing. A quantum physicist would say the model of the world should not be represented by atoms but certain non-phslysical "quantum particles"....
Again, models...
@@anthonybrett
@@Havre_Chithramodels that look nothing like the thing they represent are shit. If I build a model of voyager 1 I don't want it to look like a tractor. I'm not going to confuse my model with the world but I don't need an inaccurate model like religion to avoid the mistake
@julesbrunton1728 You do realize that the models you consider accurate depend a priori on the model provided by The Bible? In fact, the basic mathematical logic and wisdom of people like pythagoras are encoded within The Bible itself... Newton was able to derive his Laws of Physics from it as well.
All of the sciences and things we know today to be true depend upon the model presented to us in The Bible. You won't have a true understanding of the sciences without it.
Trust me. I grew up 30 years as an atheist and a devotee to science. I love science but I didn't really understand it until I learned The Bible.
Do as you please, but I am telling you that The Bible is the KEYSTONE model you need to get on board with if you are going to become an actual player at the table in this life.
@@Havre_Chithra Agreed. It's also the primary reason why science is technically an ideology. Dr. Jan Bentz recently had a great talk with Peter Boghossian trying to explain this but Peter didn't see his point. The scientific model, is literally no different than an ideological lens you are viewing the world through. That's what ideologies are, frameworks through which we interpret the world (well according to Slavoj Zizek whom I personally agree with.)
Peter didn't agree, but he had a lot of trouble arguing against it. ;) Not knocking Peter, I think he's a saint but he gets a little bogged down in "new atheism".
Everyone should have both the mind of a teacher and that of a student. It’s great to be so knowledgeable that you can pass that to others in the form of teaching. But never forget you have the ability to learn from others.
A wise man once told me you can learn something from everyone. The lesson isn’t always useful but it has helped me remember to never think to highly of myself even in my area of expertise
Jordan Peterson lives in vagueness and bullshit, Dawkins was trying make him commit to any statement he was saying and make him explain what exactly he means.
He really doesn't, he's a very precise speaker. People who say this seem to have trouble layering abstract concepts.
@@hypno5690 he is so precise he cannot even respond to a yes/no question. You people are the worst deceptively anti-intellectual cult that exists online.
Watching the Peterson Dawkins interview I couldnt get the picture of a 5 year old with fingers stuck in ears going "la la la la la i cant hear you" out of my head. It was honestly painful to see.
I think, in basic terms, Dawkins arguments are that just because something has benefit doesn't mean the underlying are true (religion). Dawkins and Peterson are arguing two different things, with both being interesting to discuss.
Dawkins is arguing at a lower perspective where he can LARP superiority, Peterson is looking at it from a higher and deeper perspective where he can fit everything into truth and reality. Dawkins is trying to remove eberything except what he can see, but he is almost blind...
You have zero truth, stop LARPing like Dawkins you ever saw it, you confuse "measure" with axiom.
Not everything is meant to be interesting. I think Peterson just like to spice up debunked nonsense with word salad, and people eat it up.
Believing something that you know isnt true is advantageous and even the rational thing to do when it forms the basis of everything that you know IS true.
I know that the scientific model of the atom is not literally true... no one has ever seen an atom itself, only representations of it. I know that the model presented to me of the atom is not literally true... it is just a model... however, assuming it is true provides a foundation and an explanation for everything else I know to be the case. It is a useful story or myth that helps explain our everday ordinary experiences, like why the elements differ in their properties (their state, density, stability, conductivity, etc).
It doesnt mean things are literally made up of atoms, but it is true as a predictive model of explanation.
The only block Dawkins has, is a block against BS.
Like everyone, Dawkins has internalized a certain amount of BS. Bret’s criticisms here are spot on.
Moral decay is #1 BS
That’s a cope, Dawkins refuses to engage with Jordan’s ideas
Devastating oversimplification.
When you guys talked about the comment layer, and how we should write a bible II book with the comments on the side, all I can think of is that this is exactly what peterson has been doing for the last few years, gathering the greatest theological minds and making public lectures explaining and going into details about all of the stories written in the bible. Its not a book per say, but whats in those lectures certainly contains the wisdom necessary to wrote such a book.
14:21 I've listened to the 😮 always come to the same conclusion. He refused to admit he has no direct answer to the core subject of the reality of his own belief of God, or defense of his insistents that God exists. He just layers multiple abstract arguments and scenarios that frustrates the discussion. I think Dawkins tries to listen and understand, but is always offered shifting sand. IMHO, Peterson is hiding his own issues behind his sophisticated use of obstructive layers. Simply put, to me he is full of shite!
I'm Pro Peterson in this but I agree with you. They will never be able to articulate anything, and that's the problem with religious point of view. They also can't admit that they want to be Christian just because it's a popular clubhouse. And can't rectify how you could possibly believe in something, while also knowing that it's not true.
Thank God for a long history of intellectuals believing in God. Peterson can look to that and feel comfortable.
Personally I don't believe in God but I don't see how you can derive any beliefs from that.
Bret Weinstein at his best. Taking incredibly complex concepts and distilling them down for most everyone to more easily understand, just incredible. Great job, Breedlove!
I can't stand these arrogant atheists that make zero attempts to understand religion and constantly strawman it.
Nobody believes in "a guy in the sky", STOP.
Also, "those of us that know there is no guy in the sky (God)" no, you don't know that at all. You have chosen to believe that, but you don't know that and it's not something you've "discovered".
What pompous , self-satisfied nonsense.
@zzzzz77771 waw, not even Jordan understands it, can you fill us all in please? Thanks
We understand it better than you
I find it interesting that Dawkins/Peterson embody the Progressive/Conservative approach in a quite archetypical way on the topic of religion. The truth, however, is found somewhere between the poles. Religion as a technology is an amazing concept, and balancing specifically Judaism and Christianity, with their goals of enabling a flourishing society, between the poles would be something EXTREMELY valuable, worthwhile, and interesting. I hope the will, brainpower, wisdom, and sincerity needed to do that will be found and supported on a big enough scale to make it a meaningful endeavor.
Yall need to give the Bible a proper chance, join a bible study, join a reading club, start going to church. Align your actions and motivations with the actions and motivations of Jesus. The Bible is inexhaustible in its wisdom, and there are a seemingly infinite number of commentaries and apologetic defenses. There is no way forward without Jesus. The ambiguity is intentional.
Unfortunately, the churchgoers take having their beliefs challenged with logic about as well as the other end does their insane BS. 😑
I am interested in Jesus' journey in his twenties when he travelled to Ladak and lived in a buddhist monastery for 6 years (read: THE SECRET LIFE OF CHRIST) this makes everything make sense, he was enlightened and went back home teaching love and peace within yourself. Heaven and hell are places in your mind not places of reward or punishment. His teachings were warped to a place of fear and control through religion and the Bible which was written hundreds of years after his death.
Protestantism doesn't offer anything that will contribute to this kind of dialogue. There is no "giving the Bible a proper chance" without proper interpretation. You need to be embedded within the tradition it spawned from.
13:07 Conveniently leaves out Christianity when talking about these important gatherings of religion once a week
wisdom? in the bible? lol
Fascinating conversation
Sure, but Peterson needs to realize that memes are the basis for archetypes, rather then some teleological pre-evolutionary phenomena. So they both need to conceed ground.
Brett also seems to miss the potential danger in calling something 'metaphorical "truth" rather then usefull lie. One might lead to a dogmatic adherence to these outdated parts of tradition, while the other will not. There are trade-offs when it comes to how much you should fool yourself. Too much and you become dogmatic and unable to adapt, too little and these ideas become forceless.
Seems like all of them need to conceed some ground if they truely want to come closer to truth.
One just has to remember that all these 'social engineere types are about promoting 'group fittness', which also has trade-offs for the individual
that all being said, Dawkins does point out one thing that both brett and peterson seem to miss (which is related to the dogmatism at play when people use 'metaphorical truth' as they show their hand). That is Dawkins insistance on calling memes 'parasites'. Both Peterson and Brett can't seem to engage with the fact that these ideas might hurt individals and groups for the sake of their own propogation.
They have no way of understanding nihilism, antinatalism, pessimism ect. continued survival in an evolutionary sense. Which is part of their own limitation of this theory.
There are reasons why memes can survive across time and space that is not related to ouer 'benifit', begging the question to this whole enterprise of reinterpretation of religion as 'benifitial'.
People need to be able to ask the question "benifitial for what?"
Thomas Sowells questions for lefitst might aswell apply to traditionalists here
1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?
I don't think you understand his stance on "metaphorical" truth. What Bret speaks about is "adaptive" or "evolutionary" truth, which is basically a heuristic that facilitates survival and fitness to the environment. It is not "objectively true" that you should be scared by every unexpected noise at night, but millions of years of selection has resulted in us reflexively becoming alert and tense when we hear it. This also extends into sociopsychology, according to Bret. It's not that we know something is false but pretend it's true, it's that we automatically act as if it's true even if we don't have a systemic logical framework for why it should be true. This is what makes postmodernism so formidable, as there really doesn't seem to be any hard line objectivity to any system of thought or morality. Nevertheless, we cannot act as if we don't value our worldview, and we have to act somehow, which gets into metamodernism and postmodern traditionalist thought. But the point is, the adaptive truths are not just "useful lies."
@@sigiligus Sure that might be his stance, but then he uses it diffrently then peterson, and should be carefull to destinguish them.
In his past discussions with peterson he didn't seem to bother to destinguish their worldviews.
To the point where ideas like 'the gun is always loaded' came up as an example. Which is one of these 'usefull lies' because as Alex o'conner pointed out, one would want the gun to be 'really' loaded when one has to protect onself, so one has to be able to destinguish the usefull protective idea of threating guns as loaded, with the usefull idea of an gun 'actually' being loaded.
I personally havn't seen Bret talk about this in the way you ley out, so il be happy if you have a link to that, but even if its just your interpretation, i still appriciate the idea you offer, despite it not being what bret seems to have been talking about in the past with peterson and dawkins in perticular
EDIT: so as it relates to what you call 'adaptive truth' or 'evolutionary' truth, i think that seems to be a better description of what is happening in terms of evolutionary frameworks ala donald hoffman (which peterson also needs to learn from), but 'metaphorical truth' in respects to 'fooling yourself' about some ideas usefullness still seems to apply to religious ideas that can be dismissed.
@@sigiligus The point is that Peterson is not seeing himself as a postmodernist in all situations(at all), there are a lot of people listening to him that are more on the fundamentalist side of religion, which people like Dawkins criticize. I think a big moment in there discussion was when Peterson admitted that he doesn't care if religion comes from god or is created by us. Of course there is a point to be made, but I think it's in conflict with what Peterson tells people in other situations and what his followers actually believe. A cultural Christian doesn't care if it's bottom up or top down, a believer does!
I think the remark with the parasite really fits to this. Since the Idea of topdown leads to a stronger mem (Since there is no easy self correction so more stability), they can have this feature which lead to their survival and not our benefit. This is what people like Alex, Harris and Dawkins criticize, the inherent idea of dogma in religion, and Peterson didn't really address this point, for whatever reason.
This is why Peterson is so subversive. Symbolism and religious idess are metaphysical, not biological.
Better to watch Pageau.
@@DavidRemington I have watch both him and Pageau, and can't say they adress the main issue with the position.
Its a teleological approach and is at odds with the very theory they attempt to use for their gain (evolution).
Donald Hoffman questioned the nature of their 'metaphysical' claims, and the knowability of such claims given the evolutionary framework.
Iain McGilchrist questioned the process, and ultimate purpose
Michael Malice question the practical aswell as the foundational aspects of the psychological needs at play
(all these are taken from jordans conversations with them)
all in all its a very lacking theory of everything. It requires more philosophical work, and since none of them are philosophers (atleast not in the analytic sense) im doubtfull we will get any satisfying anwsers to these questions from them.
While i don't endorse all views made by these people (obvious, but i still feel the need say it) i suggest looking into "Scientific Genius" on youtube, for the most indepth discussion on the topic as far as i could see
Thank you Gentlemen.
Peterson word salads his way through their conversation and says nothing. Just tries to get away from directly answering any of Dawkins points. Makes it very clear that it’s a grifter speaking to a scientist.
Just so you know, whenever someone throws the word salad accusation out there, it exposes their academic level.
So, you're also not listening. Got it. If you can't understand Peterson, which is not so difficult, there's some reading you have to do, my friend.
Also here to point out that "a scientist" is fucking hilarious. Who the hell cares if he's "a scientist" 😭
"word salad" "grifter", just say you can't understand his ideas and try harder
I think you just paid Peterson the greatest compliment ever.
17:30 That's what the Word of Wisdom is for.
Exactly what I was thinking! Word of Wisdom and Prophets to update the code!
This conversation frustrates me so much. To have this level of knowledge on biology and science took so many years of study to speak with such a level of certainty and Brett knows the levels of learning as a student, as a researcher and of course i am sure he would admit you even learn more as an educator based on feedback or reconceptualization while dictating to students. Yet he speaks with such certainty about the religious corpus while i am almost certain he has given a fraction of time and effort into its exploration. Has he read the church fathers? Aquinas, the didicade etc. he even miscategorized the reformation, they didnt want to break away intially. Everything they said about religion and meme evolution can be correct AND God can still be real.
I don’t want to argue about religion on this, but as good of a job as Alex did, I think Dawkins was a fool to reject Bret as moderator.
The beauty of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
This understanding that he describes about religion is something that I have understood. And it is very key and important. It is absolutely true. Look at the Mormons for instance. For the Sikhs. They have more success and happiness than other people. And Jews to be sure.
Your being and your knowledge are interlinked. One cannot jump much farther ahead of the other before being stuck.
I'm not religious because it doesn't work for me. I'd never have the arrogance to tell someone what works for them. I find meaning in uncertainty and purpose in the pursuit of understanding what I can to the best of my ability every day. For me the journey is the purpose and the destination is irrelevant. I don't like making assumptions on the intentions of others. I don't see how someone making assumptions about what they cannot know is actually making a statement about themselves. Having to live with myself is a powerful enough incentive for me not to betray my moral code. I'm extremely critical of myself and hold myself to impossible standards that I've failed to live up to many times. As long as I'm not hurting others, learning from mistakes, and not hurting others I don't see a moral disparity. I'm very aware that I may be wrong but if I am I don't see the harm in it. There's a lot about religion I admire and a lot I don't but that's my view and I respect others views. We're all human beings and my views are no more important than anyone else's.
Science has nowhere to hide...
Descriptive language is almost one hundred percent religious. Eg. Water, Sky, Earth, Fire are all elements that were originally identified as a form of deity and everything that derived from them were also a form of deity.
Water - rain, river, ocean.
Sky - sun, moon, wind.
Earth - plants, animals, minerals.
Fire - light, heat, lighting
The languages of human life develop from describing and discussing matters that began with religious meaning and then evolved into modern parlance.
Vico fan?
This man truly seems more intelligent than the average smart guy. Brilliant mind