Alex deserves a lot of credit for facilitating this exchange in a fair manner. He does a really good job of steelmanning both Jordan and Dawkins' respective positions, and grants each of them an equal opportunity to elaborate.
He certainly got the best possible conversation out of this, though I feel it wasn't much. Peterson and Dawkins don't disagree THAT much with each other, they are simply uninterested in what the other is focusing on. Dawkins is into biology and related hard sciences, criticizing religion and coming up with the concept of memes were only sideshows for him, Also, he has discussed those things to death. That explains why he looks so bored for most of the debate.
@Razear No he doesn't. He was Dawkin's Minime the whole time. "Yeah, c'mon Jordan! Answer the question the way we want you to! Climb into this tiny box we've created for everyone who doesn't ridicule religion! His dare you speak outside of our narrative!" 🤡 🤡 s
The crazy part is that this exact same style of answering is what JP criticises about the "post-modern types". Simply insane how he doesn't see it or chooses to ignore it.
He is a very fine young fellow. Although i fear Peterson, for the most part, got away with his usual fudging. But then as he says frequently as a debate stopper "I have thought a lot about this!" As if Dawkins et al haven't!
Truly a captivating discussion. I have tremendous respect for Alex O’Connor for how genuinely he seems to search for the truth, I appreciated how he held Jordan’s feet to the fire and got a straight answer out of him. I also appreciate how Jordan pointed out to Prof. Dawkins the assumption being made in all scientific endeavors, that there is a logical and discernible pattern to the properties of the universe, and as Prof Peterson points out, this is uniquely a Judeo-Christian phenomenon. Can’t wait to watch the whole sit-down.
Jordan has read all of Carl Jung and still can't figure out Christianity for himself or anyone else. His best advice to men without fathers was Clean Your Room
@@arriuscalpurniuspiso Well, that last part conflicts with why I do like him. When I first began following him 6 years ago, I saw that he showed genuine passion and emotion for the topics he discussed. Even to the point of him getting teary eyed when talking about the problems of young people. He's compassionate, and genuinely cares about the topics he discusses. And from what I can tell, grifters always speak in absolutes, like they know everything for sure. But JP doesn't. He's not afraid to say that he doesn't know everything, and that he's still trying to figure things out. In my eyes, that's a true intellectual. A true intellectual understands that the more they know, the more they realize they don't know. But he's not cold about it. He's not cold about it when tells us to clean our room, and there's deeper meaning to that saying as well. I like him as a person, and I've genuinely felt the positive effects that following him has had on my life. I consider myself blessed, and my life enriched, for having discovered him. He actually offers me something. I tried nihilism before. I didn't much prefer it. Lately, thinking about it now in bed, it seems that he isn't biased on the topic of religion. He's not willing to disregard the wisdom of the Bible, but is also not a proclaimed Christian, or is even religious at all. I don't even know what he truly is in this area. Once again, that tells me that he's highly intelligent, maybe even a genius who doesn't hunker down under any one label, like Christian, atheist, agnostic, or anything like that. He seeks wisdom, knowledge, and understanding in everything.
This was the best part of the discussion in my opinion. I tend to be with Jordan in his view and ive learned a lot from him, but his inability to answer simply when asked about whether he believes the things in the bible literally happened has always bugged me. I understand why it misses the point with him, but that's not the question he's being asked. Alex did masterfully breaking it down enough for Jordan to let his guard down and just answer already. It was an absolute pleasure and honor to see these minds get together to talk. One more off the bucket list.
He doesnt want to answer for good reason. The answer doesnt matter. People want him to answer yes or no so they can catagorize him. Whether or not he personally believes christ was born from a virgin is immaterial to any arguement he has made
@@David-vk5sv if you say you believe in the bible, you should believe everything or nothing, the same with the quran. But if modern people would make that decission almost no one would be a convensional believer anymore. The modern religions ( climate change, racism and the enviroment) have different problems because they do not have one source, yet they are based on a lot of boogus sources (as well in my opinion) . I would like everyone to just make their own decission and be done with it.
@@the_w189 Peterson isn't making the claim that the biblical stories are useful because you put faith into them. He is saying that they like all stories, contain some meta truth that would be wise to follow.
@@the_w189"if you say you believe in the bible, you should believe everything or nothing, the same with the quran." Nope. The bible is way too complicated to read without a substantial amount of interpretation. The Qur'an and the bible are also not comparable in that sense. The Qur'an is said to be the literal word of God, originally spoken in Arabic and simply written down by the one and only Prophet. Translations of it are dismissed in essence, for not being the source. The bible however is written by many people, some known, some anonymous, in multiple languages over a period of 1500 years. The 'standard' bible as we know it today is, well known amongst Christians and non-Christians alike, a process of hundreds of years of result of picking and choosing which books to include and which not. That in itself is of great influence and required a lot of interpretation to begin with. There is no way that your claim that you should either believe everything or nothing, is even remotely true. It's an oversimplified view of religion and its books. Peterson is making a similar point by openly and plainly avoiding the oversimplified 'virgin question'.
@@David-vk5sv He doesnt want to answer because he knows deep down, that the things actually didnt happen. And if he admits that, he looses his christian followers and can no longer profit from christianity by selling courses as advertised in the video. On the other hand he cant say the events are true because he would loose the debate because lets admit it the evidence for christianity (like any other religion) is super weak. So he has to be sort of ambiguous about it to not blatantly loose the debate and look stupid.
My father is a rare person who is very old and orthodox hsidim setmir, he speaks MANY languages very well, including older versions of hebrew arabic has studied talmud extensively.When I was 14 or 15 ( I'm nearly 40 now) he was asked to take a look at the dead sea scrolls. I thought it was a huge honor and when he got back from his trip and I asked him about it he said "It's just a bunch of old men arguing about weather or not those symbols mean : virgin, young woman, desirable woman, unmarried woman, fertile woman etc etc." And it seems they're STILL arguing about it.
Sounds like they all apply simultaneously but Joseph was going to divorce her quietly because of the virginity issue and not because she was desirable in her feminine attributes.
Have you ever played the children's game Telephone? Look how much words get distorted even when people are trying to keep it the same in just a small group over 10 minutes. Now imagine thousands of years and dozens or even hundreds of generations. Even with book-keeping languages change over time. All history as we interpret it is just a game of telephone in a sense
And that's where I think the Vatican did humanity a great disservice throughout time. They decided which books to keep. Which books to burn. What to books to hide from humanity and what books to give them as religion. All the while keeping archives of books not only in written in Hebrew, but books written in Latin in their little coffers. Books that probably clarify most of the argument. Gate keepers.
Myths are real the same way numbers are real. Numbers are not material objects that exist in spacetime. They exist as abstractions. Myths are the same in a way.
@@segaboy9894 Yes, but you can only ever have ten marbles, ten coins, or ten of any other specific thing. You can never just have ten as a number. So that begs the question. Is "ten" real? It challenges the notion of "real" itself. By that same token, something like Cain and Abel is a story of betrayal, envy and fratricide. Are those themes real? Myths aren't meant to be demonstrated. They're meant to demonstrate. The above myth demonstrates the aforementioned themes.
@@l000tube it depends on how you understand faith. If you understand it in the protestant way (Luther said that "Reason is the devil's greatest whore" xd) then you get people believing the universe is 6000 years old. If you understand it in the catholic/orthodox way (which is the original way), then you have a belgian priest discovering the Big Bang and the Church inventing modern science. Faith isn't "believing without proof", it is trust, and to trust something you need evidence.
Yes I felt the same way about the ending. Is there anyone else out there who has had their precious faith ripped to shreds by academia, and what is the purpose of doing so? It’s the new oppression when the institution can rewire one’s mind away from the beliefs passed down by the mother, and given new identity from the state.
That's because he too is evolving. Alex is not the same way, even in his debates as he was before. I even heard him describe himself as agnostic as regards to belief in a recent interview and I found that quite interesting.
8:42 Jordan Peterson is a psychologist and a therapist by profession and does not prioritize myth. He prioritizes consciousness and psychology and usually looks at all things as to how they relate or contain to that. He prioritizes consciousness and psychology and usually looks at all things at how they relate or pertain to that.
thats why he should see how like his Frodo he talks about in the LOTR clinging to the ring him and so many of these disgusting old men cling to Israel to the tune of 10,000 dead kids. no his faith has blinded him
No. Dawkins, as always, is trying to help his interlocutor see things a bit more clearly by slapping down Petersons abstract nonsense with clarity and science. There is only 1 brilliant mind here, and its not Peterson. The first few sentences of this clip tells you everything you need to know.
@@FlawlessP401 It is clarifying, when Peterson tries to tell us that fictional writing is truth and Dawkins reminds him that, by definition, fiction is made up, then that is clarifying. Maybe not to you, but to anyone who likes rationality and reason, it is. As a Peterson fan, someone who likes the safety and comfort of opinions and fictions as 'truths' then you're not going to like it when Dawkins attempts to correct you, your 'feels' are going to get in the way.
I really like both gentlemen, but Dr. Dawkins seems like the more concise thinker here on the matter of reality. Glad to have both men in the discourse.
The question of the virgin birth is an excellent place to launch a debate about religion because it really cuts to the heart of the atheist position. Atheists want to say that - obviously - a virgin birth is unscientific, just as they want to say that - obviously - the story of Noah’s ark is unscientific. And while there may be any number of unscientific Christians who believe in such stories uncritically, the question for JP is not whether they are true in a sense that science can address. For Dawkins, this is tantamount to admitting that they are not true in any meaningful sense at all. And many will want to stop listening at that point, but this is where the real debate begins. JP is not a Flat-Earther. He acknowledges and respects the contributions of science. He certainly understands the basic science of human reproduction perfectly well. He only seems to be dodging the question of the virgin birth because he suspects - with good reason - that it is not well formed, and he doesn’t want to answer in a way that would trivialize his position. And what is his position? It’s that there is a sense - which is more important than the banal scientific one - that Christ was born of a virgin. How can this be explained? Well, obviously not in a way that would satisfy those who demand a scientific account. But JP is concerned with the function of myth. He believes that myth provides an account of reality that science is not equipped to address. Indeed, he believes that the myths underlying Christianity provide the essential grounds for science. It is a subtle and complex notion that takes a lot of effort to unpack.
It was a boring conversation, really. Their respective positions could be summarized in a couple sentences each and if that had been done they’d probably largely agree with on another on most of it.
The research of how female biology works, has a damning record in scientific circles. Because female hormones are too unpredictable. They've ignored women for decades. If they cannot answer the question about how real-time female biology works in the fertility cycle, then they certainly aren't qualified to ask about pre-scientific conception. Miraculous or otherwise, they're ignoring the fertility cycle in real-time women, today.
But Jordan's insistance that science was invented by Europeans is so painfully wrong. The Greeks and Persian Empires had science and advanced math, they just called them different things. In my view Jordan is engaging in the Geneetic fallacy - claiming causation from a mythological substrate that could have been structured any number of ways. As evidenced by the Greeks/Persians for instance, having advanced agricultural science, math, astronomy. (hardly a Judeo christian substrate.) Europeans are left brained people. Genetitically. (often at the expense of their ability to just be happy.) They formalized science in the modern era - sure. But not in all of cultural history.
If dawkins had such a worldview that would deminish his abilty to be an evolutionary biologist. Because conclusions of his research could be at odds with a christian(or other religions) worldview.
Peterson's response to Richard Dawkins' question about the virgin birth demonstrates a problematic dichotomy between fact and myth. When he says, "I don't know if the virgin birth happened because I don't know how to mediate between the fact/value dichotomy," he's overcomplicating the issue. We know, scientifically, that virgins do not give birth. That’s a fact. But at the same time, the story of Jesus' virgin birth carries profound symbolic or mythological value. Peterson struggles because he's allowing the fact to undermine the value, as if they must be reconciled on human terms. But here's the truth-Peterson isn't the one who needs to mediate between fact and myth. The fact might lead you to conclude that the myth cannot hold truth. But if you shift the focus to the mythological value, it points you back to the divine mystery, questioning the seeming impossibility of virgins giving birth. It's a contradiction, yes-but it’s one that can only be reconciled in Christ. Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, unites fact and value in perfect harmony. In Christ the Spirit bridges heaven and earth, God and man-and consequently, scientific fact and mythological value. Under this Trinitarian understanding, the scientific fact becomes that a virgin did indeed give birth, while the mythological value reveals that the eternal ordering principle of the universe (the Logos) became incarnate to reconcile humanity to God. Without this divine assumption, you're left with the irreconcilable: the fact that virgins don’t give birth and a myth pointing to purity as a symbol of cosmic order. But in Christ, both are made one, transforming what seems impossible into the ultimate truth.
Could one be a Christian and not to believe in virgin birth as a literal, biological and material fact exactly the same way as one believes that Sun is real?
When he says that a society that does not value the symbol of the woman and child will collapse, JP disingenuously compares belief in virgin birth and reverence for motherhood as if they were the same thing.
I think peterson is not willing to have the word „truth“ be captured by science. I think Dawkins is too comfortable calling science truth- its foundation is based on an unproven Idea, just like petersons position. I propose an idea that could bridge the gap between the scientific understanding of reality, as outlined by Richard Dawkins, and the conceptual, metaphorical interpretation of truth presented by Jordan Peterson. Science is fundamentally based on mathematics. There is a core belief, an axiom of mathematics, that is also fundamental to the scientific pursuit: the idea that two things can be identical. In mathematics, this concept is so ingrained that we often overlook it. Yet, the notion that 1 equals 1 is deeply meaningful, especially considering there is no natural representation of this concept. So far, there is no (zero) evidence that two physical objects can be identical. Much of scientific pursuit, particularly in the hard sciences, aims to find identical components that make up reality. Take, for example, the quest to find identical particles in physics. Despite advancing our observational capabilities to the smallest components of an atom, we have yet to find two physical objects that are truly identical. This relentless pursuit of identical components has driven much of scientific progress, increasing our resolution of observation to unprecedented levels. However, each discovery only highlights the uniqueness of the universe’s building blocks. I won’t delve into more detail here; my point is that there is no evidence supporting the concept that 1 equals 1-in other words, that two things can be truly identical. On the contrary, our efforts suggest that everything in the universe is composed of unique components. These components can be arranged, classified, and sorted into groups based on similarities. We achieve a lot by grouping them in meaningful ways, and on certain levels of observation, this allows us to assume that two things can be identical. Our classifications have been so efficient that they allow for us to live in blissful ignorance most of the time. Bringing this back to Peterson and the discussion he had with Dawkins: I believe that the idea that two things can be identical is linked to human thought itself. As Peterson suggests, humans simulate the future within their brains so that our ideas can die on our behalf. These simulations take reality and replicate it-a fascinating concept. Science and computers have taken this concept further by creating “perfect” replications within the mathematical framework we developed. We constructed a framework -namely the mathematical framework- where things can be identical and then built machines to navigate this framework. Fundamentally, one could argue that the idea of two things being identical has no more scientific backing than the concept of the virgin birth. They Both lack evidence suggesting they could be possible. However, both serve as foundations for an intellectual understanding of reality, albeit within two different frameworks: one of meaning and story, and the other of objects. We rarely question the foundation of science because of the staggering success we have achieved using it as a tool to explore reality.scientific inquiry and computers have enabled rapid discoveries once we embraced the idea that things can be understood objectively. What matters is that these discoveries are based on a knowledge framework we artificially created. We *completely* ignore the fact that the veryfoundation of this framework lacks proof and stands contrary to mountains of evidence suggesting it cannot be true. We disregard the foundation as long as the structures we build upon it are impressive. In the case of science and the framework of numbers, they are overwhelmingly impressive. However, the foundation underneath these discoveries is crumbling, and our society is struggling to understand why. Perhaps instead of leveraging the great benefits of the mathematical framework while acknowledging its limitations, we have attempted to make it our all-encompassing truth. We are trying to rebuild everything based on this foundation and may discover too late that it cannot support all that our society has created. The framework of meaning-a similarly artificially created framework-has limitations that seem so obvious and dismal that it is easy to reject anything built upon it. But dismissing it would mean rejecting thousands of years of Western development and removing the foundation of our Western thinking. This is harder to perceive since we reside on the top floor of our intellectual tower, but the foundation is deeply needed. Without it, our reality will collapse, with consequences that can’t be predicted or understood when only navigating within the framework of numbers. It escapes its scope. But this collapse is happening right before our eyes. Despite the vast economic success of the West, we fail to maintain our civilization. Christianity is in decline, and people with scientific backgrounds are having fewer children. The best predictor for infertility in a woman in the western sphere is her degree of scientific education. The framework of numbers leaves no space for meaning. It is hard to put into words, but the effects are obvious, and they can be observed in all western countries. To use a quote from the intelectual works based on the framework of meaning: Sometimes, we must be comfortable holding two opposing truths, one in each hand. Reality is complicated-too complicated for any single human to fully understand. We have built intellectual frameworks to make sense of it. Our current favorite framework, the mathematical one, has brought us great progress but does not allow us to integrate our previous framework of meaning, story, and morality. These elements have yet to be integrated and accounted for. This is what Peterson emphasizes. However, I believe this integration is impossible due to the fundamental limitations of science, particularly the belief that two things can be identical. If this were true, the entire religious enterprise would prove meaningless. (I can elaborate on this, but for now, I will leave it as a claim.) We must understand the limitations of science. It is insufficient for painting a complete picture of reality. We need to recognize that the framework of meaning through story still holds significance-a significance that science cannot explain because it evades its methods of reasoning. It has a foundation that is equally flawed but entirely different. Perhaps we can accept that both frameworks allow for a better understanding of reality than each could provide on its own. This is my first essay of this sort so please don’t hold back any feedback.
@@gk2677You only have to question: what is more impossible: to a virgin to give birth, to a blind man to see or to a dead man to resurrect three days later? Or even: why would God not intervene directly in our world, our lives?
Peterson: *uses comprehensive scientific principles and objectively valuable citations to make a nuanced point about divinity* Dawkin: bUt wUz mArY fUeKt iN hEr pOoZy?!?!?!?!?
It could simply be the fact that he's old now. It's very hard to take in new and complex concepts when you're in your 80s. I kind of wish this conversation would've happened 10 or so years ago. I think JBP has become less articulate as well.
It is more hubris than intelligence because he's so busy worshipping himself that he can't fathom being wrong and smart people know what they don't know or can't know instead of talking out of their asses like they have all the answers...Plainly said he's not God even tho he walks around as if he is and JBP at least is smart enough to say "I don't know..."
I can't get over how they can write an essay in words to essentially say one of three things, yes, no, or I don't know. My answer is yes, it's a mystery, and it is profoundly true
@8:42 “Jordan prioritizes myth and I prioritize fact”. This statement is a false dichotomy. Jordan also prioritizes fact, but he is willing to acknowledge the possibility of biblical accounts of events being true beyond what can be currently explained through known facts.
I think he more believes the meaning that can be derived from such stories is more true than it being literally true, a meta reality, a hyper truth, an overarching motif. This is why he ducks and dodges this question so much. He more highly values the meaning than whether it is literally true. To say he does not believe, believes, or does not know, each of these statements are loaded with connotations he does not care for.
That doesn’t make sense at all 😂 Facts are facts. Making claims that CANT be proven or disproven CANNOT be facts. They’re hypothesis and you shouldn’t base you’re entire belief system on the hypothesis of 2000 year old myths
@@Vilutusk What you say is possible as "facts" is actually determined by your experience of what you think is possible. Going to the moon is not something people thought was even possible and someone could argue even 300 years ago that going to the moon is a myth, even now people don't believe the moon-landing footage is real. There are many things people believe in that they haven't proven for themselves. People believe in the big bang, yet have not proven or disproven it themselves, they believe it based on the trust they have for our teachers and modern scientists. Same thing for Evolution. It doesn't mean these things aren't true or anything, but people believe these things based on faith/trust of others, usually teachers and scientists (who are like our modern day priests).
Faith and your inner enlightenment are my answers. Human minds have a difficult time compartmentalizing spiritual experiences versus "Scientific" analysis. We each are born with the Light of Christ and learning to keep and grow that light is the human journey.
Even when there is questioning and disagreement on this channel, I can still tell you genuinely care Mr. Peterson...this is undeniable, and I honor you for this...I know what it is like for others to disagree with you and misunderstand you, but to most of all want others to know that you care...kindness is not weakness, and for me this virtue of genuine empathy is the primary thing that has evolved me for the better, even towards less excessive empathy, ironically enough...
@@lakshen47 Yes, but they don't function in absolute contrast to eachother (VS). The whole "your left brain is more rational, and the right brain more emotional" kind of crap is debunked. Most of the time your brains cooperate. So calling one side of the discussion "right brained" and the other "left brained" or calling the discussion "left-brain vs rightbrain" makes absolutely zero sense.
Weird dream about JP last night. He was going to his car (some orange American type sports car yet more practical somehow) nothing definite. I was flying above sort of a bit threatening and he clocked me saying something like ‘come down or don’t at all’. It was a bit of a meet your hero dream which I haven’t had since very young. Ended up chatting and it was all cool. Strange and even stranger I feel the need to share!!! Bizarre
I respect both of them for conducting this debate in a civil and professional manner. Ultimately, Christian walk is a walk of faith and not of sight and that’s why Richard Dawkins can stand valid in his mind because he’s looking for a sight he’ll never get and he’ll always have to believe in faith, if that’s what he ever chooses to do. God intentionally made it that way so that no one is cornered in a belief in him, but only believe if they do desire with all their heart.
If you are Catholic and believe God created the universe, heaven and Adam from dust - then the ability for God to orchestrate a virgin birth is child’s play. The simple answer is ‘yes’ it was a virgin birth. Science, from that point of view is simply the human approach to understand what God already made.
I also think Peterson should have replied to Dawkin's assertion that scientific achievement is the ultimate pursuit of humanity, "How many murderers in prison have found out that we went to the moon and they decided to turn their life around, make a deep and profound change and help other prisoners become better people?" The answer is zero because that has no bearing on the individual and their relationships to others, themselves and God. Truth that applies to those 3 relationships is vastly more valuable than "scientific" truth or engineering marvels.
Dawkins is still correct you could look at it another way, the scientific achievements will ultimately bring a greater understanding of the minds condition and will allow for more tailored rehabilitation, therapy and the scientific achievements of the future in mental health may prevent those men from ever being murderers in the first place
Cognitive dissonance from a religious moron again. Most people who enter prison are religious, they make up the majority of the prison population. Queue the mental gymnastics, they aren't really Christian etc.
I would just like to point out the scientific advancement have had huge effects on human beings. Due to science most of us can watch all our children grow up instead of watching them die from hunger and disease. It is much better for humanity to pursuit solutions to our problems through science rather then pursuit a story that will just help us cope with it instead.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” - this goes, sadly, for JP too. As much as I am on “his side” in this conversation, he darts and desperately tries to dodge answering clearly the question on the virgin birth. As Christians, it’s a simple yes it’s true. It isn’t a scientific question for it was an act of God intervening. It can’t be explained by science. Praying JP fully surrenders to Christ and stops battling the truth like this.
I agree. However I don’t believe your assessment is accurate. “He darts and desperately….dodge…” isn’t quite his position. He is preoccupied with having to respond to the “follow up”. The answer being “ yes, the virgin birth did historically happen”, follow up: “then prove it as fact”. The only way outside of faith, would be to have Yeshua’s physical body here, take a sample of his cell(s), then pinpoint in which ever way those missing chromosomes from a natural father is filled in. Because if ANY of us could do that, or 😅Yeshua himself was willing to leave the throne…and I don’t mean that proverbially - those 23 chromosomes replaced by some divine material would NOT be of ANY similitude of a mortal man’s dna.
I dont hear JP professing himself as wise in a pompous manner. Or even in a banal sense. He seems to humble himself quite often and he is being humble and authentic when he admits that he doesn't know if the virgin birth happened. I don't think either he or Dawkins are fools.
@@None-lt5lwtrue, that would be foolish, unless this "human" was special. Now look at the gospels, the claims, miracles, the resurrection, the church, the domination of pagans and how that happened (not through violence)... then, and only then, the case gets compelling. Evidence and reason will lead to faith
A reason this conversation is important is because it really brings into light what Jordan actually believes. A lot of people take the bible as historical fact. But from what I understand, Jordan doesn’t know if some things are scientifically true and/or it doesn’t matter to him, he believes the bible is hyper real and full of metaphors that we base our lives upon. Which is something he seems hesitant to admit, or has difficulty saying.
@@danielscheib119 one day he will realize the truth of the Word of God. As a born again believer he will not stumble over the answer as he has here. Many of us are praying for his completion in Christ.
@@TheoFun498 Difficult or near impossible if you are not sure of the truth. He is searching for truth but not quite there. He answered with the limited knowledge he has.
@@CJP.-pq3kryou kidding right? A rational human being can only see truth as something that can be proven by metods of science. Everything else is opinion, feeling, belief etc. Religion is true by accident and only at specific points.
For an atheist, the question about the validity of the virgin birth couldn't possibly be answered without themselves allowing God to exist temporarily for the purpose of potentially having the question answered.
a virgin birth shouldn't be that insane to someone who believes that life can from non-life and, a birth coming from a biological body is already better than coming from nothingness. the atheistic realm could write it off as a 'freak accident' or 'scientific anomaly' but there are multiple ways that even an atheist can believe in a 'virgin' birth, in the sense that virgin implies the lack of fornication or conventional sperm
@@slimblank9280 aren't you tired of those boring clichés 😅 try saying something novel and constructive. I hardly hear Atheist talk in those terms... we've gone past that my friend. Having said that, the question remains. Can all truths be verified only through the Scientific method? And if so, how does the Scientific method validate itself?
Debating the existence of God... is Godly. Doing and saying things that seek to improve things is proof of the existence of God in men and women for the pure simple fact that they're seeking to do good.
In my opinion, JP wants to believe the accounts are true because there is so much usefulness in many things the Bible says but the supernatural aspect of it makes his scientific side prevent him from saying they are facts, lest he starts to believe all supernatural events other people claim happened.
The truth is, it’s of no importance whether those things actually happened, and this partly explains why Peterson has always avoided (or, when asked, spoke about their interpretation instead) such questions. What he actually means is that each story has a certain meaning behind it. In a sense, the Bible, in his eyes, is similar to a selection of fairytales (if you like), each giving you a valuable lesson. Those who constantly try to poke him understand it, but they fail to see Peterson’s motive. Therefore, it’s more about their attitude towards Jordan rather than their search for the truth. The latter is upsetting
The problem is the two are distinct ideas. The sciences work because they follow the laws of nature, hence natural sciences. God is outside creation , beyond nature, hence supra-natural. The problem/trap that Peterson and many who debate on the side of God is that the initial debate where the atheists say to the other to agree that everything existence within the confines of a universe that held by the rules of natural science. As soon as the other agrees, they automatically lost
@@jacksonelmore6227 that's fine, i know some people dont agree with my opinion. I love JP but in this matter I think he is overly dodging the question when we all know, even him, what the question is about.
@@mousedynasty4953 consider that Jordan’s view encapsulates and harmonizes with Dawkins’s view Whereas it’s not true the other way around Dawkins has yet to understand that science and myth are the same study and metaphysic Your opinion may innocently come from your intellectual ego, as does Dawkins’s If you have never activated your kundalini/been born again/opened your third eye/accepted the metaphysics of Love and Oneness/engage in any kind of mysticism in good faith, you will continue to operate as an adolescent intellectual This is not meant as an insult, I speak this way in that it may grab you if you wish
For the ones giving Pete the faith spiel.. understandable, but I don't think most understand the tactful snares that are unleashed early on, that have the sole intention of defeating Petersons entire side of any conversation. Good work Pete , unbelievable.
Because that's the wrong question. The correct question is "What does the Virgin Birth mean?" JP should have pointed this out at the beginning. I know he knows this (he taught me, somehow, so...).
@@PotatoBTD6 There's no such thing as a wrong question. Jordan Peterson could simply answer the question, and then follow up by saying "we should be asking this question". JBP is right to point out that we should focus on the meaning of mythological stories. But he's wrong in thinking there's some hidden motive in the more literal-based questions and not taking those questions at face value.
probably the same reason why dawkins says that we can't say the word time when it comes to the singularity and then people should ask a physicist rather than him. although there are physicists who are theist, and dawkins seems to say that theists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to god, yet simultaneously says that he doesn't know enough to talk about physics, to the point that he refers people to physicists, it's a circular argument
Hello Jordan, In one of Mikhaias podcast episodes, the interviewer asked her, “How is it your parents raised you?” Mikahlia said, “ My dad always treated me as if I could do more.” That's biological evolution itself, in human physiological terms right there. Is one thing to have a silent underlying condition of EXCELLENCE, but imagine actually REWARDING instead of just an underlying condition. Evolutionarily animalia speaking; this is exactly which species are able to reproduce and why. Though that may only even be to ONLI conscious Beings that can have a reward system
The way I see it is that Dawkins looks at facts and how we can make scientific advancements. He doesn't seem to care about anything else. Peterson values that obviously, but in terms of temperament he is a lot more interested in people and how we as humans navigate and understand the world around us. I just don't think Dawkins cares about that at all and I think that's a damn shame. Scientific facts is great and all, but how does quantum physics help regular people trying to get by and survive in life. How does quantum physics help people confront their anxieties and depressions and existential dread? These people don't give a shit about quantum physics nor would even care to understand it, when they are just trying to get by in life, trying to live a meaningful life. And this is important if you want to understand the current culture war we are in. Richard Dawkins had a pretty wealthy upper class upbringing, who was a gentry (basically an aristocrat) just below the nobility class while Jordan comes from a very poor working class background from northern Alberta. This is why they are so different and it is an important fact. Jordan is a psychologist and has helped people in therapy for years, of course he would have more interest in myths and metaphysical narrative since storytelling is what the regular human beings on this planet are interested in because they are trying to find meaning in their existence and trying to navigate their lives through depression and anxiety. Dawkins just does not have an interest in that, and his work has very little value to regular people, when Jordan is trying to bridge the two types of thinking together so that we can somehow find an answer or solution to this current culture we are in. To me storytelling will always have more value than just random set of scientific facts, facts are useful when we use them to form a narrative that would move forward the advancements of human life. They are all meaningless in a vacuum. Storytelling is what connects people to the metaphysical. The masses are interested in movies, video games, non fiction books, etc. Not random scientific facts. And that is the case for good reason. Scientific facts have value but they are meaningless without a story. Myth and facts need some sort of marriage otherwise society crumbles. And this is why, at least to me, Peterson doesn't care about questions when asked if he believes in God, virgin birth or the resurrection. Because it doesn't matter if they were real events. It's the symbolism that matters, which has changed the course of human history.
This was an excellent analysis, I hope more people read this. I hate when people try to invalidate people based on things that aren't relevant to the point they're making, but the class and upbringing issue here is very much relevant. Dawkins has always had the *luxury* of being flippant and dogmatic because his world was safe and secure due to his family position in life. When you grow up without absolutes, and your life isn't stable and your future isn't guaranteed, you don't have the *luxury* of being able to deal with the world as though you can understand anything you wanted to if you just read a paper or conducted a little experiment. Atheists have a terrible problem of creating dogmatic echo chambers and not being open at all to trying to understand that which sustained people who have been through hardship trying to make sense of it all. I'm not saying that atheists haven't known hardship, but I'm saying their intolerance of even hearing anything that they don't deem "scientific", when most of them don't even study science they just read pseudo science papers online, leaves a huge blind spot in their experience and understanding of not just the world but the human condition.
Dawkins is a superficial thinker. And Peterson a confused one (purposefully so). They spent the entire conversation talking past each other unnecessarily. Dawkins must admit that he is not interested in facts per se but only facts about certain things. To distinguish between facts and symbols as he did makes no sense because as Jordan would reply there are facts about symbols too - about which Dawkins seems to have no interest. As for Jordan, he simply can’t bring himself to answer whether he believes the stories of the Bible really took place in a literal sense.
I think the reason why Jordan Peterson has issue coming right out and saying whether or not he believes Christ was born from a virgin is because he knows darn well if he takes a definitive stance on the point than he’ll lose an audience from the people he’s trying to help. As a Christian, I respect Jordan Peterson tremendously. He communicates the Bible, Jesus, and the Gospel with a lot more integral, deep, fundamental, transcendent meaning, passion, and comprehension than most Christians. And understands the depth and significance of the practical application of those axioms more than most Christians. I wish more Christians were like him, to be quite frank.
@@CarlosPerez-em3wu Not necessarily pandering. He finally admits that he doesn't know if the Virgin birth actually happened. He's been quite evasive because he doesn't want to alienate Christians that he thinks he can help.
They kept changing the subject to try to pin the belief of a miracle on Jordan and then discount anything else he might have to say. While Jordan's words may have fell on deaf ears, I gained a lot of insight personally.
@Cryharder-r1e It depends on how much interaction he was having with the drug beforehand. As a psychologist, he would not be prescribing benzos, and as a professor, I do not know if benzos were any part of his lectures. He has said that he only sees the risk of medication worth it when the alternative is much worse. It sounds like he tried to avoid medication unless it was absolutely necessary.
@Cryharder-r1eJP isn't a psychiatrist. Obviously you don't know the difference. He took medication because of the turmoil of his wife being ill. Its bizarre that you think your presenting a valid argument.
Matthew 12:36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak.''For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
This is why Dr. Peterson's claim of being a Christian gives me pause. I don't personally know a single Christian who would waver for a second about their belief of the Virgin birth, regardless of who's asking.
@@Bob-v6h8t I completely agree. I've always felt that he is too preoccupied with psychoanalysis of the text to see God revealing Himself and calling Jordan to have a personal relationship.
@@tomgreene1843 Yes. Not in this video but in others. He also refers to God as the "ultimate fictional character." His position on the issue is pretty whack all around. He's trying to benefit from the Christian label without sincerely holding Christian beliefs. In his defense, millions of people do this every day.
Thomas doubted Christ and Christ accepted and loved him anyways. No Christian is called to blind belief, they are called to have faith *despite* their doubts.
I would like you to discuss your ideas of the bible with academic biblical sholars such as Bart Ehrman who has had some very intresting conversations with Alex O’Connor
It was great to see all three of them acknowledge that science always has a non-science foundation. The easiest way to see this is to consider that you have to start with a belief, a value judgment, in deciding what to study scientifically.
I love both Dawkins and Peterson. I can see where each side is coming from. I think the two of them together with their respective fields of expertise could probably invoke some pretty good questions and provide interesting answers after a good, long debate. Not even being recorded and for entertainment, but just alone, the two of them, trying to sift through mythology, history, and metaphor. I hope to see more.
I maintain that science is the application of specific epistemological arguments to metaphysical questions. It's value as an enterprise is born out in improvements it has made possible to our standard of living. But examining the foundational philosophy, it's not even claiming to be able to answer every question there is to ask. Science is a powerful to for testing falsifiable hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to understand what is _True_ is a different undertaking, one I'm not sure we're equipped to succeed at, in any definitive way.
Science is a tool, not a god. And the science we have are known as the natural sciences. What created our existence/cosmos was beyond nature... Supra-natural and used science that didn't follow the rules our existence holds by.
Science is more dimensional than you describe but okay, your statements are fine. However, what do they have to do with the conversation from the video, really?
Not trying to be a dick, but this is essentially the point of the video. Dawkins is saying that his foundational views of the world are based off of scientific fact, and scientific fact alone. Peterson is making the point that truth is not exclusive to scientific fact; moreover, the most profound truths can only be arrived at through mysticism or, at the very least, some level of religious devotion. Essentially, that the scientific method has limits to the knowledge that can be gleaned from it. OP of this thread is expanding on this discussion by making the epistomological point that we may not have the tools to actually understand truth beyond what can be learned from the scientific method in the first place - a sentiment I currently agree with. However, as the body of human knowledge grows, more doors open. I wouldn't discount the possibility that we could eventually discover truths that have religious levels of meaning through this growth. Afterall, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of understanding the fundamental nature of reality.
I get what they both say, but it’s like they’re on two fundamentally different wavelengths in terms of how they approach and think about the world. Both are of incredible value, but for different purposes.
Because it's so incredibly useful and profoundly powerful even if it was only a myth. He talks a lot about how psychology works and how we actually see the world on the most fundamental levels as a story. Like they've done science about that. The factual perception and processing is layered on top of instinct and story. When you're following the right story, you make better decisions, society functions better, you pay attention to facts in the most useful hierarchy, etc. Go watch vervaeke'meaning crisis series, and Peterson's Maps of Meaning and Biblical series, if you want clearer explanations.
@@Sopranohooper That's great, but there are people out there who think you'll go hell and be tortured for eternity if you don't think the stories are literally true. And these people will say this to their children, other family and friends. So I think JP should be clearer. Sure, they're profound stories, OK (so are many other non-religious stories by the way), but they almost certainly did NOT happen and that does NOT mean you'll go to hell.
Dr. Peterson, the way to answer such questions is to turn them around: "Why do you ask that? Is that your litmus test for a valid interlocutor? Do you think a Virgin birth is impossible? How do you prove that impossibility scientifically?" In the end, people like Dawkins must be faced with the truth that science is not the only standard of truth and they are not the arbiters of rationality. To say otherwise would be shamefully unscientific and pathetically irrational.
JP needs a better short answer, which could be “Your question is designed as a set up for a follow up. Like when Jesus was asked about taxes. But I don't have the wisdom of Jesus. I can’t prove the virgin birth if I say Yes - because that is what your follow up question will be, to provide proof - but if I say No, then your follow up will be how can I accept the integrity of other elements of Christianity. So my position is I do believe in the importance and integrity of the Christ narrative and that is what matters most, indeed for me it is all that matters and it comes first. Your question which demands a Yes or No scientific answer is designed to torpedo my own fundamental belief in narrative by placing your fundamental belief in scientism as ontologically superior which obviously I reject and is why you are cornering me into giving a scientific answer to what I believe is a non-scientific narrative.”
Dr. Peterson, it is so impressive to me that you are willing to test your ideas in this way. You truly tread the delicate difficult path for the benefit of others. You are my intellectual hero.
The simplest answer is Isaiah 7 does prophecy a sign.. what is the sign? Look up every instance in which Alma is used in the Old Testament. Maybe not literally a virgin but indicative of a virgin. You don't need to unscramble it
Ngl seems like a waste of time debating whether or not the exact story of the bible truly happened. I'm not religious but I won't deny the impact that Christianity had on building a better world.
Yes, that accent is real. Of course there is a broad range of understandability. For some in St. John’s it’s virtually undetectable. In other areas, it is very rapid and incomprehensible. Newfoundland English is a mix of rural West Country English (Southwestern English counties of Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, and surrounds), somewhat similar to what many would call a pirate accent, and mostly western Ireland accents. The Newfoundland accent varies greatly, traditionally, depending on where the people came from when the community was established and how isolated that community was.
This is what I came to comment. The semantic ranges of almah and parthenos overlap. You could perhaps make the argument that the context of the Isaiah prophecy rules out parthenos as a translation, but I would like to see Dawkins make the argument. That also seems to me to misunderstand fulfillment of prophecy, which is the "filling up to the full" of the prophecy. So it isn't necessarily the exact, consciously intended meaning (according to the human prophet) of the prophecy in its original context. The Septuagint translators may have been drawing out a fuller meaning that Matthew then recognized. Regardless, Christians reading that passage in Isaiah is unlikely to have caused them to suddenly believe that Jesus had no biological father and invent the story of the Annunciation and the virginal conception.
@@WeakestAvenger That is another really good point. The way in which Mathew means that Jesus "fulfilled" or "rendered to completion" Isaiah 7 I don't even think really hinges on the translation of that word. In any case as you put it the uses of the two words overlap.
But it is what the Bible says. Apart from Isaiah 7:14 Almah is translated as virgin just once, and as maiden (or similar) about 10 times. And to understand Isaiah 7:14 you need to read the rest of Isaiah 7 and 8, which is then clear that it is NOT talking about a virgin. There is actually a sex scene in Isaiah chapter 8!
@JohnBarr-r5b Maidens were virgins in that cultural context. The almah in Isaiah 7:11 was almost certainly a virgin when the prophecy was given. That is all that is required for Matthew's proposed deeper messianic fulfilment to work. That would be true even if your assumption is correct that the almah was Isaiahs wife, which I think is possible but uncertain since Ishiah already had an 8-year old kid. Unless she was his second wife, which is possible but not stated, she wouldn't be an almah. Also to understand the prophecy reading the rest of chapter 7 and 8 is not enough. You have to read chapters 7 to 12. The sign of Emanuel points to the root of the stump of Jessie, which is the messiah.
The difference is Richard asks the ‘What’ question and Jordon asks the ‘Why’. The source of the impasse here seems to be that they are both valid questions and equally important and one should not be prioritised over the other. This, in my view is why science and philosophy are the uncomfortable but inevitable marriage.
The only thing thats obvious here is that the question about how we deal with the oppression of women within the strictily "factual" paradigm was never answered... unfortunately the moderator jumped in
"Damn i really enjoyed that movie. I learned i should cherrish life. Am going to hug my mother". "There was no movie. It was just pixels that gave you the impression of something happening." "B-but... i really learned from it and it was really important" "Show me a paper that can ProooOooOOoooOove that!"
False equivalence. Most Christians actually believe in the truth propositions of their religions literally happening. The correct equivalence would be the first interlocutor getting out of the theater thinking they just watched a documentary and the second one explaining that it was just a movie.
Except that’s not what is happening here. Atheists are the one in fact suggesting that these stories be taken in the same vein as fictional morality tales. Peterson on the other hand is trying to maintain the illusion that something about these fictional events is factually accurate. He’s trying to immunize them from scrutiny and dismissal. A modern work of fiction, such as a movie, may be analyzed and dismissed as morally incoherent or unethical, but, for Peterson, not the Bible. That can’t be analyzed and dismissed.
I’ve heard the allegation that the term “virgin” simply means a woman who has not yet given birth; not that she has not had an extremely intimate encounter.
Which seems like a rather foolish suggestion considering the number of times it is suggested across the various New Testament texts that she had not had relations with a man
@lukedegraaf1186 Thank you for proving you have no idea what you are talking about. The word in literally translated means "young unmarried woman". The argument is whether or not the connotation for "young unmarried woman" at that time and in that culture is "virgin" or young girl". Just saying "the bible" is a pointless statement.
"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish." 2 Nephi 9:28
JBP is the wisest thinker of our time, always a pleasure to listen to him. Great comparison with quantum physics, we don't understand how two particles can move at the same time even though they're millions of light years away. The same way we don't understand the Virgin Birth or other miracles.
Apples and oranges. To date there has been no good evidence for any miracle, anywhere at any time. Zero, nothing. We as a species are actually figuring out deep scientific questions. We are not substanciating claims about miracles.
@@Esco87 What evidence do YOU personally have of how two particles 2000 miles away are interacting? In fact, what evidence do you have as for how the particles of my tiny pinky finger are interacting with each other? Please, answer me.
If you think what JBP is saying is profound, you should also check out Jonathan Pageau and the early Christian Church father's like St Maximos the Confessor.
Alex deserves a lot of credit for facilitating this exchange in a fair manner. He does a really good job of steelmanning both Jordan and Dawkins' respective positions, and grants each of them an equal opportunity to elaborate.
I was extremely impressed with his calm demeanor and how he interjects and steers the conversation.
He certainly got the best possible conversation out of this, though I feel it wasn't much. Peterson and Dawkins don't disagree THAT much with each other, they are simply uninterested in what the other is focusing on. Dawkins is into biology and related hard sciences, criticizing religion and coming up with the concept of memes were only sideshows for him, Also, he has discussed those things to death. That explains why he looks so bored for most of the debate.
Lies. He didn't steelmanned Jordan's position because Alex is a moral relativist, a Lucifirean mind.
@Razear No he doesn't. He was Dawkin's Minime the whole time.
"Yeah, c'mon Jordan! Answer the question the way we want you to! Climb into this tiny box we've created for everyone who doesn't ridicule religion! His dare you speak outside of our narrative!"
🤡 🤡 s
When Dawkins complimented him at one point, saying something like perfectly put. I was so pumped for Alex. What an honour that must have been for him.
which ever side you support is nice but what is really great here is seeing two individuals debating like gentlemen in this day and age.
I don't "support" either side, they both made good points.
I would also say Alex did an amazing job to keep it on track, perfectly
They are both white this why
Although one thing Jordan could learn from Dickie is to chill the hell down every once in a while during the debate.
@@tbk2010 What points did Peterson make? Dude just evades the question with his bullshit word salads.
The crazy part is that this exact same style of answering is what JP criticises about the "post-modern types". Simply insane how he doesn't see it or chooses to ignore it.
Projection
@@yuriy5376 pls explain how he is not an easy question to answer whter or not jesus had a biological father
A fine line between being insightful and just confused and convoluted.
This mediator is doing an amazing job. Wow!
I don't think anyone who has followed Alex is the least bit surprised. He's pretty brilliant.
That’s Alex o Connor lol
This would be a Baker Act in Florida
@@godless1014he's ok. He's too academic and hasn't been to a pub
He is a very fine young fellow. Although i fear Peterson, for the most part, got away with his usual fudging.
But then as he says frequently as a debate stopper "I have thought a lot about this!" As if Dawkins et al haven't!
Truly a captivating discussion. I have tremendous respect for Alex O’Connor for how genuinely he seems to search for the truth, I appreciated how he held Jordan’s feet to the fire and got a straight answer out of him. I also appreciate how Jordan pointed out to Prof. Dawkins the assumption being made in all scientific endeavors, that there is a logical and discernible pattern to the properties of the universe, and as Prof Peterson points out, this is uniquely a Judeo-Christian phenomenon. Can’t wait to watch the whole sit-down.
Hindus have it too. Not unique to Christians.
Jordan has read all of Carl Jung and still can't figure out Christianity for himself or anyone else. His best advice to men without fathers was Clean Your Room
To me, Peterson is someone I find worth following the most. I should really get to reading the rest of his books.
@@Fxrrxt2x what is it about him that you like? He strikes me as a fatuous grifter.
@@arriuscalpurniuspiso Well, that last part conflicts with why I do like him. When I first began following him 6 years ago, I saw that he showed genuine passion and emotion for the topics he discussed. Even to the point of him getting teary eyed when talking about the problems of young people.
He's compassionate, and genuinely cares about the topics he discusses. And from what I can tell, grifters always speak in absolutes, like they know everything for sure. But JP doesn't. He's not afraid to say that he doesn't know everything, and that he's still trying to figure things out. In my eyes, that's a true intellectual. A true intellectual understands that the more they know, the more they realize they don't know. But he's not cold about it. He's not cold about it when tells us to clean our room, and there's deeper meaning to that saying as well.
I like him as a person, and I've genuinely felt the positive effects that following him has had on my life. I consider myself blessed, and my life enriched, for having discovered him. He actually offers me something. I tried nihilism before. I didn't much prefer it.
Lately, thinking about it now in bed, it seems that he isn't biased on the topic of religion. He's not willing to disregard the wisdom of the Bible, but is also not a proclaimed Christian, or is even religious at all. I don't even know what he truly is in this area. Once again, that tells me that he's highly intelligent, maybe even a genius who doesn't hunker down under any one label, like Christian, atheist, agnostic, or anything like that. He seeks wisdom, knowledge, and understanding in everything.
This was the best part of the discussion in my opinion. I tend to be with Jordan in his view and ive learned a lot from him, but his inability to answer simply when asked about whether he believes the things in the bible literally happened has always bugged me. I understand why it misses the point with him, but that's not the question he's being asked. Alex did masterfully breaking it down enough for Jordan to let his guard down and just answer already. It was an absolute pleasure and honor to see these minds get together to talk. One more off the bucket list.
He doesnt want to answer for good reason. The answer doesnt matter. People want him to answer yes or no so they can catagorize him. Whether or not he personally believes christ was born from a virgin is immaterial to any arguement he has made
@@David-vk5sv if you say you believe in the bible, you should believe everything or nothing, the same with the quran.
But if modern people would make that decission almost no one would be a convensional believer anymore.
The modern religions ( climate change, racism and the enviroment) have different problems because they do not have one source, yet they are based on a lot of boogus sources (as well in my opinion) .
I would like everyone to just make their own decission and be done with it.
@@the_w189 Peterson isn't making the claim that the biblical stories are useful because you put faith into them. He is saying that they like all stories, contain some meta truth that would be wise to follow.
@@the_w189"if you say you believe in the bible, you should believe everything or nothing, the same with the quran."
Nope. The bible is way too complicated to read without a substantial amount of interpretation.
The Qur'an and the bible are also not comparable in that sense. The Qur'an is said to be the literal word of God, originally spoken in Arabic and simply written down by the one and only Prophet. Translations of it are dismissed in essence, for not being the source.
The bible however is written by many people, some known, some anonymous, in multiple languages over a period of 1500 years. The 'standard' bible as we know it today is, well known amongst Christians and non-Christians alike, a process of hundreds of years of result of picking and choosing which books to include and which not. That in itself is of great influence and required a lot of interpretation to begin with.
There is no way that your claim that you should either believe everything or nothing, is even remotely true. It's an oversimplified view of religion and its books. Peterson is making a similar point by openly and plainly avoiding the oversimplified 'virgin question'.
@@David-vk5sv He doesnt want to answer because he knows deep down, that the things actually didnt happen. And if he admits that, he looses his christian followers and can no longer profit from christianity by selling courses as advertised in the video. On the other hand he cant say the events are true because he would loose the debate because lets admit it the evidence for christianity (like any other religion) is super weak. So he has to be sort of ambiguous about it to not blatantly loose the debate and look stupid.
My father is a rare person who is very old and orthodox hsidim setmir, he speaks MANY languages very well, including older versions of hebrew arabic has studied talmud extensively.When I was 14 or 15 ( I'm nearly 40 now) he was asked to take a look at the dead sea scrolls. I thought it was a huge honor and when he got back from his trip and I asked him about it he said "It's just a bunch of old men arguing about weather or not those symbols mean : virgin, young woman, desirable woman, unmarried woman, fertile woman etc etc." And it seems they're STILL arguing about it.
Sounds like they all apply simultaneously but Joseph was going to divorce her quietly because of the virginity issue and not because she was desirable in her feminine attributes.
Have you ever played the children's game Telephone? Look how much words get distorted even when people are trying to keep it the same in just a small group over 10 minutes. Now imagine thousands of years and dozens or even hundreds of generations. Even with book-keeping languages change over time. All history as we interpret it is just a game of telephone in a sense
He sounds like an interesting fellow, thank you for honoring him by sharing his story.
And that's where I think the Vatican did humanity a great disservice throughout time. They decided which books to keep. Which books to burn. What to books to hide from humanity and what books to give them as religion. All the while keeping archives of books not only in written in Hebrew, but books written in Latin in their little coffers. Books that probably clarify most of the argument. Gate keepers.
I love the fact that men find us women so interesting and to put in the beggining of those myths ❤ there we see how important is our state as women. ❤
Lots of respect for all 3 men.
Beautiful respectful discussion.
Seems so rare now on the internet.
Nah. Dawkins is still an "adze" hat; and, Alexis the Zero and CON er is still just an overrated little sack of denial. 😏
It's actually pretty common
Agree
Even though Peterson is actually RFK Junior?
@@arriuscalpurniuspiso And, Dawkins is just Madeleine Murray O'Hair in drag. 😏
"People don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
God is dead.
- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead.
- God
:)
@@sketch820god is dead, now man is free
I don’t want to lose my illusions. They’re my dreams.
But what is the illusion and what is not?
I fell in love with a horse and was crazy.
- Frederick Nietzsche
As Richard Rohr says, “Myths are always true, and sometimes they really happened”…
When ?
@@eddiebus100 people thought Troy was mythical until it was found in the late 1800s
Myths are real the same way numbers are real. Numbers are not material objects that exist in spacetime. They exist as abstractions. Myths are the same in a way.
They often happen!
@@segaboy9894 Yes, but you can only ever have ten marbles, ten coins, or ten of any other specific thing. You can never just have ten as a number. So that begs the question. Is "ten" real? It challenges the notion of "real" itself.
By that same token, something like Cain and Abel is a story of betrayal, envy and fratricide. Are those themes real?
Myths aren't meant to be demonstrated. They're meant to demonstrate. The above myth demonstrates the aforementioned themes.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.
Agreed. It is actually so freeing to have faith.
Sadly in reality it's usually just delusion, but if it makes you feel good today go for it.
@@GingerBear22 I would argue that too much faith leads to blindness through ideology.
@@l000tube it depends on how you understand faith. If you understand it in the protestant way (Luther said that "Reason is the devil's greatest whore" xd) then you get people believing the universe is 6000 years old. If you understand it in the catholic/orthodox way (which is the original way), then you have a belgian priest discovering the Big Bang and the Church inventing modern science. Faith isn't "believing without proof", it is trust, and to trust something you need evidence.
@l000tube yep I am sure you would like to argue
Jordan gives a great answer near the end of the video. I'm so happy he is around to say things like that to intellectuals.
Yes I felt the same way about the ending. Is there anyone else out there who has had their precious faith ripped to shreds by academia, and what is the purpose of doing so? It’s the new oppression when the institution can rewire one’s mind away from the beliefs passed down by the mother, and given new identity from the state.
Thank you all, for this interesting topic, conversation, perception.
Alex is a truly incredible mediator. Though I know his views of if I watched him mediate I couldn’t tell you his perspective. That’s impressive
That's because he too is evolving. Alex is not the same way, even in his debates as he was before. I even heard him describe himself as agnostic as regards to belief in a recent interview and I found that quite interesting.
This is why we love podcasts. Thank you all 3.
8:42 Jordan Peterson is a psychologist and a therapist by profession and does not prioritize myth. He prioritizes consciousness and psychology and usually looks at all things as to how they relate or contain to that. He prioritizes consciousness and psychology and usually looks at all things at how they relate or pertain to that.
Well, i mean. Everything you said in your second sentence DOES deal with myth. And your,,,, third?
thats why he should see how like his Frodo he talks about in the LOTR clinging to the ring
him and so many of these disgusting old men cling to Israel to the tune of 10,000 dead kids.
no his faith has blinded him
This is a high level conversation!! A privilege to see these two brilliant minds.
Nah. Dawkins is more like an "Ed E. Ott" savant. 😏
No. Dawkins, as always, is trying to help his interlocutor see things a bit more clearly by slapping down Petersons abstract nonsense with clarity and science. There is only 1 brilliant mind here, and its not Peterson. The first few sentences of this clip tells you everything you need to know.
@@l000tube I don't have Dr. Peterson's psychological credentials; but, even I can SEE PLAINLY that you're either deluded, lying, or both. 😏
@l000tube but his approach isn't clarifying it's a dodge. No one cares if it occurred literally. It actively cannot matter
@@FlawlessP401 It is clarifying, when Peterson tries to tell us that fictional writing is truth and Dawkins reminds him that, by definition, fiction is made up, then that is clarifying. Maybe not to you, but to anyone who likes rationality and reason, it is.
As a Peterson fan, someone who likes the safety and comfort of opinions and fictions as 'truths' then you're not going to like it when Dawkins attempts to correct you, your 'feels' are going to get in the way.
I really like both gentlemen, but Dr. Dawkins seems like the more concise thinker here on the matter of reality. Glad to have both men in the discourse.
The question of the virgin birth is an excellent place to launch a debate about religion because it really cuts to the heart of the atheist position.
Atheists want to say that - obviously - a virgin birth is unscientific, just as they want to say that - obviously - the story of Noah’s ark is unscientific.
And while there may be any number of unscientific Christians who believe in such stories uncritically, the question for JP is not whether they are true in a sense that science can address.
For Dawkins, this is tantamount to admitting that they are not true in any meaningful sense at all. And many will want to stop listening at that point, but this is where the real debate begins.
JP is not a Flat-Earther. He acknowledges and respects the contributions of science. He certainly understands the basic science of human reproduction perfectly well.
He only seems to be dodging the question of the virgin birth because he suspects - with good reason - that it is not well formed, and he doesn’t want to answer in a way that would trivialize his position.
And what is his position? It’s that there is a sense - which is more important than the banal scientific one - that Christ was born of a virgin.
How can this be explained? Well, obviously not in a way that would satisfy those who demand a scientific account.
But JP is concerned with the function of myth. He believes that myth provides an account of reality that science is not equipped to address. Indeed, he believes that the myths underlying Christianity provide the essential grounds for science.
It is a subtle and complex notion that takes a lot of effort to unpack.
It was a boring conversation, really. Their respective positions could be summarized in a couple sentences each and if that had been done they’d probably largely agree with on another on most of it.
The research of how female biology works, has a damning record in scientific circles. Because female hormones are too unpredictable. They've ignored women for decades. If they cannot answer the question about how real-time female biology works in the fertility cycle, then they certainly aren't qualified to ask about pre-scientific conception. Miraculous or otherwise, they're ignoring the fertility cycle in real-time women, today.
But Jordan's insistance that science was invented by Europeans is so painfully wrong. The Greeks and Persian Empires had science and advanced math, they just called them different things. In my view Jordan is engaging in the Geneetic fallacy - claiming causation from a mythological substrate that could have been structured any number of ways. As evidenced by the Greeks/Persians for instance, having advanced agricultural science, math, astronomy. (hardly a Judeo christian substrate.) Europeans are left brained people. Genetitically. (often at the expense of their ability to just be happy.) They formalized science in the modern era - sure. But not in all of cultural history.
Science CAN address the virgin birth
Science shows that we live in an infinite multiverse
Therefore the virgin birth is true
If dawkins had such a worldview that would deminish his abilty to be an evolutionary biologist. Because conclusions of his research could be at odds with a christian(or other religions) worldview.
Pete I gotta say the battles that you're responsible for are vastly different then my own. I think you're amazing.
Peterson's response to Richard Dawkins' question about the virgin birth demonstrates a problematic dichotomy between fact and myth. When he says, "I don't know if the virgin birth happened because I don't know how to mediate between the fact/value dichotomy," he's overcomplicating the issue.
We know, scientifically, that virgins do not give birth. That’s a fact. But at the same time, the story of Jesus' virgin birth carries profound symbolic or mythological value. Peterson struggles because he's allowing the fact to undermine the value, as if they must be reconciled on human terms. But here's the truth-Peterson isn't the one who needs to mediate between fact and myth.
The fact might lead you to conclude that the myth cannot hold truth. But if you shift the focus to the mythological value, it points you back to the divine mystery, questioning the seeming impossibility of virgins giving birth. It's a contradiction, yes-but it’s one that can only be reconciled in Christ.
Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, unites fact and value in perfect harmony. In Christ the Spirit bridges heaven and earth, God and man-and consequently, scientific fact and mythological value. Under this Trinitarian understanding, the scientific fact becomes that a virgin did indeed give birth, while the mythological value reveals that the eternal ordering principle of the universe (the Logos) became incarnate to reconcile humanity to God.
Without this divine assumption, you're left with the irreconcilable: the fact that virgins don’t give birth and a myth pointing to purity as a symbol of cosmic order. But in Christ, both are made one, transforming what seems impossible into the ultimate truth.
Could one be a Christian and not to believe in virgin birth as a literal, biological and material fact exactly the same way as one believes that Sun is real?
When he says that a society that does not value the symbol of the woman and child will collapse, JP disingenuously compares belief in virgin birth and reverence for motherhood as if they were the same thing.
I think peterson is not willing to have the word „truth“ be captured by science.
I think Dawkins is too comfortable calling science truth- its foundation is based on an unproven Idea, just like petersons position.
I propose an idea that could bridge the gap between the scientific understanding of reality, as outlined by Richard Dawkins, and the conceptual, metaphorical interpretation of truth presented by Jordan Peterson.
Science is fundamentally based on mathematics. There is a core belief, an axiom of mathematics, that is also fundamental to the scientific pursuit: the idea that two things can be identical. In mathematics, this concept is so ingrained that we often overlook it. Yet, the notion that 1 equals 1 is deeply meaningful, especially considering there is no natural representation of this concept.
So far, there is no (zero) evidence that two physical objects can be identical. Much of scientific pursuit, particularly in the hard sciences, aims to find identical components that make up reality. Take, for example, the quest to find identical particles in physics. Despite advancing our observational capabilities to the smallest components of an atom, we have yet to find two physical objects that are truly identical. This relentless pursuit of identical components has driven much of scientific progress, increasing our resolution of observation to unprecedented levels. However, each discovery only highlights the uniqueness of the universe’s building blocks.
I won’t delve into more detail here; my point is that there is no evidence supporting the concept that 1 equals 1-in other words, that two things can be truly identical. On the contrary, our efforts suggest that everything in the universe is composed of unique components. These components can be arranged, classified, and sorted into groups based on similarities. We achieve a lot by grouping them in meaningful ways, and on certain levels of observation, this allows us to assume that two things can be identical. Our classifications have been so efficient that they allow for us to live in blissful ignorance most of the time.
Bringing this back to Peterson and the discussion he had with Dawkins: I believe that the idea that two things can be identical is linked to human thought itself. As Peterson suggests, humans simulate the future within their brains so that our ideas can die on our behalf. These simulations take reality and replicate it-a fascinating concept. Science and computers have taken this concept further by creating “perfect” replications within the mathematical framework we developed. We constructed a framework -namely the mathematical framework- where things can be identical and then built machines to navigate this framework.
Fundamentally, one could argue that the idea of two things being identical has no more scientific backing than the concept of the virgin birth. They Both lack evidence suggesting they could be possible. However, both serve as foundations for an intellectual understanding of reality, albeit within two different frameworks: one of meaning and story, and the other of objects.
We rarely question the foundation of science because of the staggering success we have achieved using it as a tool to explore reality.scientific inquiry and computers have enabled rapid discoveries once we embraced the idea that things can be understood objectively. What matters is that these discoveries are based on a knowledge framework we artificially created. We *completely* ignore the fact that the veryfoundation of this framework lacks proof and stands contrary to mountains of evidence suggesting it cannot be true. We disregard the foundation as long as the structures we build upon it are impressive. In the case of science and the framework of numbers, they are overwhelmingly impressive.
However, the foundation underneath these discoveries is crumbling, and our society is struggling to understand why. Perhaps instead of leveraging the great benefits of the mathematical framework while acknowledging its limitations, we have attempted to make it our all-encompassing truth. We are trying to rebuild everything based on this foundation and may discover too late that it cannot support all that our society has created.
The framework of meaning-a similarly artificially created framework-has limitations that seem so obvious and dismal that it is easy to reject anything built upon it. But dismissing it would mean rejecting thousands of years of Western development and removing the foundation of our Western thinking. This is harder to perceive since we reside on the top floor of our intellectual tower, but the foundation is deeply needed. Without it, our reality will collapse, with consequences that can’t be predicted or understood when only navigating within the framework of numbers. It escapes its scope. But this collapse is happening right before our eyes. Despite the vast economic success of the West, we fail to maintain our civilization. Christianity is in decline, and people with scientific backgrounds are having fewer children. The best predictor for infertility in a woman in the western sphere is her degree of scientific education. The framework of numbers leaves no space for meaning. It is hard to put into words, but the effects are obvious, and they can be observed in all western countries.
To use a quote from the intelectual works based on the framework of meaning: Sometimes, we must be comfortable holding two opposing truths, one in each hand.
Reality is complicated-too complicated for any single human to fully understand. We have built intellectual frameworks to make sense of it. Our current favorite framework, the mathematical one, has brought us great progress but does not allow us to integrate our previous framework of meaning, story, and morality. These elements have yet to be integrated and accounted for.
This is what Peterson emphasizes. However, I believe this integration is impossible due to the fundamental limitations of science, particularly the belief that two things can be identical. If this were true, the entire religious enterprise would prove meaningless. (I can elaborate on this, but for now, I will leave it as a claim.)
We must understand the limitations of science. It is insufficient for painting a complete picture of reality. We need to recognize that the framework of meaning through story still holds significance-a significance that science cannot explain because it evades its methods of reasoning. It has a foundation that is equally flawed but entirely different. Perhaps we can accept that both frameworks allow for a better understanding of reality than each could provide on its own.
This is my first essay of this sort so please don’t hold back any feedback.
@@gk2677You only have to question: what is more impossible: to a virgin to give birth, to a blind man to see or to a dead man to resurrect three days later? Or even: why would God not intervene directly in our world, our lives?
This is beautifully put
Professor Dawkins' gift of intelligence is the very same thing that prevents his ability to see his blind spots
Peterson: *uses comprehensive scientific principles and objectively valuable citations to make a nuanced point about divinity*
Dawkin: bUt wUz mArY fUeKt iN hEr pOoZy?!?!?!?!?
No; it's his WILL that does that. 😉
It could simply be the fact that he's old now. It's very hard to take in new and complex concepts when you're in your 80s.
I kind of wish this conversation would've happened 10 or so years ago. I think JBP has become less articulate as well.
It is more hubris than intelligence because he's so busy worshipping himself that he can't fathom being wrong and smart people know what they don't know or can't know instead of talking out of their asses like they have all the answers...Plainly said he's not God even tho he walks around as if he is and JBP at least is smart enough to say "I don't know..."
@@Mbrace818 No; Dawkins has always been a willfully-blind god-denier.
Wow, this looks like an actually amazing conversation... Alright, i need to watch the whole thing now
I can't get over how they can write an essay in words to essentially say one of three things, yes, no, or I don't know. My answer is yes, it's a mystery, and it is profoundly true
Hey, it may be totally unscientific, but kudos for brevity. lol
@8:42 “Jordan prioritizes myth and I prioritize fact”.
This statement is a false dichotomy. Jordan also prioritizes fact, but he is willing to acknowledge the possibility of biblical accounts of events being true beyond what can be currently explained through known facts.
so surly h is prioritising faith not facts
I think he more believes the meaning that can be derived from such stories is more true than it being literally true, a meta reality, a hyper truth, an overarching motif. This is why he ducks and dodges this question so much. He more highly values the meaning than whether it is literally true. To say he does not believe, believes, or does not know, each of these statements are loaded with connotations he does not care for.
As the “fact finding” is even described in the 20th century.
That doesn’t make sense at all 😂
Facts are facts. Making claims that CANT be proven or disproven CANNOT be facts. They’re hypothesis and you shouldn’t base you’re entire belief system on the hypothesis of 2000 year old myths
@@Vilutusk What you say is possible as "facts" is actually determined by your experience of what you think is possible. Going to the moon is not something people thought was even possible and someone could argue even 300 years ago that going to the moon is a myth, even now people don't believe the moon-landing footage is real.
There are many things people believe in that they haven't proven for themselves. People believe in the big bang, yet have not proven or disproven it themselves, they believe it based on the trust they have for our teachers and modern scientists. Same thing for Evolution. It doesn't mean these things aren't true or anything, but people believe these things based on faith/trust of others, usually teachers and scientists (who are like our modern day priests).
Faith and your inner enlightenment are my answers. Human minds have a difficult time compartmentalizing spiritual experiences versus "Scientific" analysis. We each are born with the Light of Christ and learning to keep and grow that light is the human journey.
Even when there is questioning and disagreement on this channel, I can still tell you genuinely care Mr. Peterson...this is undeniable, and I honor you for this...I know what it is like for others to disagree with you and misunderstand you, but to most of all want others to know that you care...kindness is not weakness, and for me this virtue of genuine empathy is the primary thing that has evolved me for the better, even towards less excessive empathy, ironically enough...
Left vs Right brain discussion here with a Corpus Callosum doing his best to mediate it
left vs right brain is debunked.
Stephen Wolfram vs Jonathan Pageau would be a level up left vs right brain discussion :D
@@borzydar1196 That would be really interesting to see
@@tr-qr7pwAbsolutely not, each brain half basically has their own personality. This is not at all debunked, quite the opposite.
@@lakshen47 Yes, but they don't function in absolute contrast to eachother (VS). The whole "your left brain is more rational, and the right brain more emotional" kind of crap is debunked. Most of the time your brains cooperate. So calling one side of the discussion "right brained" and the other "left brained" or calling the discussion "left-brain vs rightbrain" makes absolutely zero sense.
Weird dream about JP last night. He was going to his car (some orange American type sports car yet more practical somehow) nothing definite. I was flying above sort of a bit threatening and he clocked me saying something like ‘come down or don’t at all’. It was a bit of a meet your hero dream which I haven’t had since very young. Ended up chatting and it was all cool. Strange and even stranger I feel the need to share!!! Bizarre
Speechless. I love it
What a marvelous discussion! The brilliance of the thing is blinding me👌
As scientist and atheist watching these brillant minds discuss, it is a blessing 🌟
I respect both of them for conducting this debate in a civil and professional manner. Ultimately, Christian walk is a walk of faith and not of sight and that’s why Richard Dawkins can stand valid in his mind because he’s looking for a sight he’ll never get and he’ll always have to believe in faith, if that’s what he ever chooses to do. God intentionally made it that way so that no one is cornered in a belief in him, but only believe if they do desire with all their heart.
Two great minds together, I listened to the podcast really amazing. Thank you.❤
If you are Catholic and believe God created the universe, heaven and Adam from dust - then the ability for God to orchestrate a virgin birth is child’s play. The simple answer is ‘yes’ it was a virgin birth. Science, from that point of view is simply the human approach to understand what God already made.
This was the most serious and funniest conversation ever
and well chaired Alex - great job
I also think Peterson should have replied to Dawkin's assertion that scientific achievement is the ultimate pursuit of humanity, "How many murderers in prison have found out that we went to the moon and they decided to turn their life around, make a deep and profound change and help other prisoners become better people?" The answer is zero because that has no bearing on the individual and their relationships to others, themselves and God. Truth that applies to those 3 relationships is vastly more valuable than "scientific" truth or engineering marvels.
Well-said.
Dawkins is still correct you could look at it another way, the scientific achievements will ultimately bring a greater understanding of the minds condition and will allow for more tailored rehabilitation, therapy and the scientific achievements of the future in mental health may prevent those men from ever being murderers in the first place
@@HaroldSeamanwishful thinking to validate the atheist point of view.
Cognitive dissonance from a religious moron again. Most people who enter prison are religious, they make up the majority of the prison population. Queue the mental gymnastics, they aren't really Christian etc.
I would just like to point out the scientific advancement have had huge effects on human beings. Due to science most of us can watch all our children grow up instead of watching them die from hunger and disease. It is much better for humanity to pursuit solutions to our problems through science rather then pursuit a story that will just help us cope with it instead.
Dawkins & Peterson has such radically different ontologies. What a great match for a debate!
Dr. Jordan Peterson is a CHAMPION !
Normally yes, just not on this issue
A champion of circumlocution.
Ego is one’s master or one’s tool. This is very good representation here.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” - this goes, sadly, for JP too. As much as I am on “his side” in this conversation, he darts and desperately tries to dodge answering clearly the question on the virgin birth. As Christians, it’s a simple yes it’s true. It isn’t a scientific question for it was an act of God intervening. It can’t be explained by science. Praying JP fully surrenders to Christ and stops battling the truth like this.
@@HeyDave16 stop battling common sense too I guess. At least we can all agree that to believe such things requires not asking questions.
I agree. However I don’t believe your assessment is accurate. “He darts and desperately….dodge…” isn’t quite his position. He is preoccupied with having to respond to the “follow up”. The answer being “ yes, the virgin birth did historically happen”, follow up: “then prove it as fact”.
The only way outside of faith, would be to have Yeshua’s physical body here, take a sample of his cell(s), then pinpoint in which ever way those missing chromosomes from a natural father is filled in. Because if ANY of us could do that, or 😅Yeshua himself was willing to leave the throne…and I don’t mean that proverbially - those 23 chromosomes replaced by some divine material would NOT be of ANY similitude of a mortal man’s dna.
I dont hear JP professing himself as wise in a pompous manner. Or even in a banal sense. He seems to humble himself quite often and he is being humble and authentic when he admits that he doesn't know if the virgin birth happened. I don't think either he or Dawkins are fools.
@@thinkoutful exactly. Now imagine a modern human believing a human can exist without a human father’s DNA.
@@None-lt5lwtrue, that would be foolish, unless this "human" was special. Now look at the gospels, the claims, miracles, the resurrection, the church, the domination of pagans and how that happened (not through violence)... then, and only then, the case gets compelling. Evidence and reason will lead to faith
I see the world (and am learning each day about this) through the redemption and love of Christ.
Careful when you talk about the Mother of God 🙏💖🌹
Or what?
@@vincentfalcone9218 or you'll be sent to Habana... or Gehenna
Two great men, two great minds. How lucky are we to be able to view this exchange.
Peterson finally looks healthy.
@@segaboy9894salty
@@segaboy9894 Get a life.
@@segaboy9894I don't think he's lying I think he's been in psychology for so long he's lost his mind. Psychology is a very mushy, soggy soft science.
@@Slipstreameryeah just answer yes, no, or I don't know.
@jbris16 As is the object of its study; the human psyche.
A reason this conversation is important is because it really brings into light what Jordan actually believes. A lot of people take the bible as historical fact. But from what I understand, Jordan doesn’t know if some things are scientifically true and/or it doesn’t matter to him, he believes the bible is hyper real and full of metaphors that we base our lives upon.
Which is something he seems hesitant to admit, or has difficulty saying.
@@danielscheib119 one day he will realize the truth of the Word of God. As a born again believer he will not stumble over the answer as he has here. Many of us are praying for his completion in Christ.
I think he should answer the question
@@TheoFun498 Difficult or near impossible if you are not sure of the truth. He is searching for truth but not quite there. He answered with the limited knowledge he has.
He’s just clinging to the ever fading hope that they’re true, in the most long winded intellectually convoluted way possible.
4:58 i never seen JBP so ready to strangle someone XD
He actually knows he was pretending to be ' I don't know the Answer '
@@segaboy9894 Sometimes it is very difficult to tell the truth.
Thats not why. @segaboy9894
@@segaboy9894 - as if an atheist would know what “truth” is 😂
@@CJP.-pq3kryou kidding right? A rational human being can only see truth as something that can be proven by metods of science. Everything else is opinion, feeling, belief etc. Religion is true by accident and only at specific points.
For an atheist, the question about the validity of the virgin birth couldn't possibly be answered without themselves allowing God to exist temporarily for the purpose of potentially having the question answered.
Thank you so much that's really Brilliant.
If God does exist, then the question is valid, if he doesn't, it's an irrelevant question.
By that logic you can boil everything down to your sky wizard and logic and science dies on the spot.
a virgin birth shouldn't be that insane to someone who believes that life can from non-life
and, a birth coming from a biological body is already better than coming from nothingness.
the atheistic realm could write it off as a 'freak accident' or 'scientific anomaly'
but there are multiple ways that even an atheist can believe in a 'virgin' birth,
in the sense that virgin implies the lack of fornication or conventional sperm
@@slimblank9280 aren't you tired of those boring clichés 😅 try saying something novel and constructive. I hardly hear Atheist talk in those terms... we've gone past that my friend.
Having said that, the question remains. Can all truths be verified only through the Scientific method? And if so, how does the Scientific method validate itself?
Debating the existence of God... is Godly.
Doing and saying things that seek to improve things is proof of the existence of God in men and women for the pure simple fact that they're seeking to do good.
In my opinion, JP wants to believe the accounts are true because there is so much usefulness in many things the Bible says but the supernatural aspect of it makes his scientific side prevent him from saying they are facts, lest he starts to believe all supernatural events other people claim happened.
The truth is, it’s of no importance whether those things actually happened, and this partly explains why Peterson has always avoided (or, when asked, spoke about their interpretation instead) such questions.
What he actually means is that each story has a certain meaning behind it. In a sense, the Bible, in his eyes, is similar to a selection of fairytales (if you like), each giving you a valuable lesson.
Those who constantly try to poke him understand it, but they fail to see Peterson’s motive. Therefore, it’s more about their attitude towards Jordan rather than their search for the truth.
The latter is upsetting
The problem is the two are distinct ideas. The sciences work because they follow the laws of nature, hence natural sciences. God is outside creation , beyond nature, hence supra-natural.
The problem/trap that Peterson and many who debate on the side of God is that the initial debate where the atheists say to the other to agree that everything existence within the confines of a universe that held by the rules of natural science.
As soon as the other agrees, they automatically lost
That’s an innocently shallow opinion
The more you understand about metaphysics, the more respect you’ll have for the spiritual
@@jacksonelmore6227 that's fine, i know some people dont agree with my opinion. I love JP but in this matter I think he is overly dodging the question when we all know, even him, what the question is about.
@@mousedynasty4953 consider that Jordan’s view encapsulates and harmonizes with Dawkins’s view
Whereas it’s not true the other way around
Dawkins has yet to understand that science and myth are the same study and metaphysic
Your opinion may innocently come from your intellectual ego, as does Dawkins’s
If you have never activated your kundalini/been born again/opened your third eye/accepted the metaphysics of Love and Oneness/engage in any kind of mysticism in good faith,
you will continue to operate as an adolescent intellectual
This is not meant as an insult, I speak this way in that it may grab you if you wish
For the ones giving Pete the faith spiel.. understandable, but I don't think most understand the tactful snares that are unleashed early on, that have the sole intention of defeating Petersons entire side of any conversation. Good work Pete , unbelievable.
@@C-Millstone He's brilliant
Why can’t JP acknowledge the context of their question and say “I don’t know”? We got there eventually but it was torturous.
Because that's the wrong question. The correct question is "What does the Virgin Birth mean?" JP should have pointed this out at the beginning. I know he knows this (he taught me, somehow, so...).
He muddies the waters intentionally so he doesn't anger his largely right wing fanbase.
@@PotatoBTD6 There's no such thing as a wrong question. Jordan Peterson could simply answer the question, and then follow up by saying "we should be asking this question".
JBP is right to point out that we should focus on the meaning of mythological stories. But he's wrong in thinking there's some hidden motive in the more literal-based questions and not taking those questions at face value.
probably the same reason why dawkins says that we can't say the word time when it comes to the singularity and then people should ask a physicist rather than him.
although there are physicists who are theist, and dawkins seems to say that theists don't know what they are talking about when it comes to god, yet simultaneously says that he doesn't know enough to talk about physics, to the point that he refers people to physicists,
it's a circular argument
@@segaboy9894 Good lord - he's a coward?
Unsophisticated comment of the day.
Hello Jordan,
In one of Mikhaias podcast episodes, the interviewer asked her, “How is it your parents raised you?” Mikahlia said, “ My dad always treated me as if I could do more.” That's biological evolution itself, in human physiological terms right there.
Is one thing to have a silent underlying condition of EXCELLENCE, but imagine actually REWARDING instead of just an underlying condition. Evolutionarily animalia speaking; this is exactly which species are able to reproduce and why.
Though that may only even be to ONLI conscious Beings that can have a reward system
The way I see it is that Dawkins looks at facts and how we can make scientific advancements. He doesn't seem to care about anything else. Peterson values that obviously, but in terms of temperament he is a lot more interested in people and how we as humans navigate and understand the world around us. I just don't think Dawkins cares about that at all and I think that's a damn shame. Scientific facts is great and all, but how does quantum physics help regular people trying to get by and survive in life. How does quantum physics help people confront their anxieties and depressions and existential dread? These people don't give a shit about quantum physics nor would even care to understand it, when they are just trying to get by in life, trying to live a meaningful life. And this is important if you want to understand the current culture war we are in.
Richard Dawkins had a pretty wealthy upper class upbringing, who was a gentry (basically an aristocrat) just below the nobility class while Jordan comes from a very poor working class background from northern Alberta. This is why they are so different and it is an important fact. Jordan is a psychologist and has helped people in therapy for years, of course he would have more interest in myths and metaphysical narrative since storytelling is what the regular human beings on this planet are interested in because they are trying to find meaning in their existence and trying to navigate their lives through depression and anxiety. Dawkins just does not have an interest in that, and his work has very little value to regular people, when Jordan is trying to bridge the two types of thinking together so that we can somehow find an answer or solution to this current culture we are in. To me storytelling will always have more value than just random set of scientific facts, facts are useful when we use them to form a narrative that would move forward the advancements of human life. They are all meaningless in a vacuum. Storytelling is what connects people to the metaphysical. The masses are interested in movies, video games, non fiction books, etc. Not random scientific facts. And that is the case for good reason. Scientific facts have value but they are meaningless without a story. Myth and facts need some sort of marriage otherwise society crumbles. And this is why, at least to me, Peterson doesn't care about questions when asked if he believes in God, virgin birth or the resurrection. Because it doesn't matter if they were real events. It's the symbolism that matters, which has changed the course of human history.
This was an excellent analysis, I hope more people read this. I hate when people try to invalidate people based on things that aren't relevant to the point they're making, but the class and upbringing issue here is very much relevant. Dawkins has always had the *luxury* of being flippant and dogmatic because his world was safe and secure due to his family position in life. When you grow up without absolutes, and your life isn't stable and your future isn't guaranteed, you don't have the *luxury* of being able to deal with the world as though you can understand anything you wanted to if you just read a paper or conducted a little experiment. Atheists have a terrible problem of creating dogmatic echo chambers and not being open at all to trying to understand that which sustained people who have been through hardship trying to make sense of it all. I'm not saying that atheists haven't known hardship, but I'm saying their intolerance of even hearing anything that they don't deem "scientific", when most of them don't even study science they just read pseudo science papers online, leaves a huge blind spot in their experience and understanding of not just the world but the human condition.
Dawkins is a superficial thinker. And Peterson a confused one (purposefully so). They spent the entire conversation talking past each other unnecessarily. Dawkins must admit that he is not interested in facts per se but only facts about certain things. To distinguish between facts and symbols as he did makes no sense because as Jordan would reply there are facts about symbols too - about which Dawkins seems to have no interest. As for Jordan, he simply can’t bring himself to answer whether he believes the stories of the Bible really took place in a literal sense.
Because he knows he'd look like a fool if he said yes god impregnated a random peasant @a.s.2426
Loving this clip going to watch the full interview!
I think the reason why Jordan Peterson has issue coming right out and saying whether or not he believes Christ was born from a virgin is because he knows darn well if he takes a definitive stance on the point than he’ll lose an audience from the people he’s trying to help. As a Christian, I respect Jordan Peterson tremendously. He communicates the Bible, Jesus, and the Gospel with a lot more integral, deep, fundamental, transcendent meaning, passion, and comprehension than most Christians. And understands the depth and significance of the practical application of those axioms more than most Christians. I wish more Christians were like him, to be quite frank.
his pandering like a politician
@@CarlosPerez-em3wu
Not necessarily pandering. He finally admits that he doesn't know if the Virgin birth actually happened. He's been quite evasive because he doesn't want to alienate Christians that he thinks he can help.
wow Alex did amazing. I'm very impressed.
Wow what a good idea. Kudos to both
"Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand."
~ Pablo Picasso
1881-1973
They kept changing the subject to try to pin the belief of a miracle on Jordan and then discount anything else he might have to say. While Jordan's words may have fell on deaf ears, I gained a lot of insight personally.
You understand the assignment.
@Cryharder-r1e So you just gonna copy/paste your comment in every thread regardless of relevance ? who paid you, bot ?
@Cryharder-r1e Have you listened to him discuss what happened with the benzodiazepines?
@Cryharder-r1e It depends on how much interaction he was having with the drug beforehand. As a psychologist, he would not be prescribing benzos, and as a professor, I do not know if benzos were any part of his lectures. He has said that he only sees the risk of medication worth it when the alternative is much worse. It sounds like he tried to avoid medication unless it was absolutely necessary.
@Cryharder-r1eJP isn't a psychiatrist. Obviously you don't know the difference. He took medication because of the turmoil of his wife being ill. Its bizarre that you think your presenting a valid argument.
Wow, and actual intellectual debate with thought and respect. Rare to say the least.
Matthew 12:36
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak.''For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Jordan is right. Bravo, Jordan. ❤
This is why Dr. Peterson's claim of being a Christian gives me pause. I don't personally know a single Christian who would waver for a second about their belief of the Virgin birth, regardless of who's asking.
@@Bob-v6h8t I completely agree. I've always felt that he is too preoccupied with psychoanalysis of the text to see God revealing Himself and calling Jordan to have a personal relationship.
Does he claim to be a Christian ?
@@tomgreene1843 Yes. Not in this video but in others. He also refers to God as the "ultimate fictional character." His position on the issue is pretty whack all around. He's trying to benefit from the Christian label without sincerely holding Christian beliefs. In his defense, millions of people do this every day.
@@tomgreene1843 Yes
Thomas doubted Christ and Christ accepted and loved him anyways. No Christian is called to blind belief, they are called to have faith *despite* their doubts.
Big up for P standing his grounds. Amazing!
I would like you to discuss your ideas of the bible with academic biblical sholars such as Bart Ehrman who has had some very intresting conversations with Alex O’Connor
It was great to see all three of them acknowledge that science always has a non-science foundation. The easiest way to see this is to consider that you have to start with a belief, a value judgment, in deciding what to study scientifically.
I love both Dawkins and Peterson. I can see where each side is coming from. I think the two of them together with their respective fields of expertise could probably invoke some pretty good questions and provide interesting answers after a good, long debate. Not even being recorded and for entertainment, but just alone, the two of them, trying to sift through mythology, history, and metaphor. I hope to see more.
Huge respect for the mediator here.
I maintain that science is the application of specific epistemological arguments to metaphysical questions. It's value as an enterprise is born out in improvements it has made possible to our standard of living. But examining the foundational philosophy, it's not even claiming to be able to answer every question there is to ask. Science is a powerful to for testing falsifiable hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to understand what is _True_ is a different undertaking, one I'm not sure we're equipped to succeed at, in any definitive way.
Science is a tool, not a god. And the science we have are known as the natural sciences. What created our existence/cosmos was beyond nature... Supra-natural and used science that didn't follow the rules our existence holds by.
Science is more dimensional than you describe but okay, your statements are fine. However, what do they have to do with the conversation from the video, really?
Not trying to be a dick, but this is essentially the point of the video. Dawkins is saying that his foundational views of the world are based off of scientific fact, and scientific fact alone. Peterson is making the point that truth is not exclusive to scientific fact; moreover, the most profound truths can only be arrived at through mysticism or, at the very least, some level of religious devotion. Essentially, that the scientific method has limits to the knowledge that can be gleaned from it.
OP of this thread is expanding on this discussion by making the epistomological point that we may not have the tools to actually understand truth beyond what can be learned from the scientific method in the first place - a sentiment I currently agree with. However, as the body of human knowledge grows, more doors open. I wouldn't discount the possibility that we could eventually discover truths that have religious levels of meaning through this growth. Afterall, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of understanding the fundamental nature of reality.
But metaphysics is not falsifiable in an empirical sense while science is.
@Lolux1701 Say more please.
Terrific guy Alex is!
It was a supernatural event
or maybe just symbolism. Which is more likely ?
He he would have to hold that also, as he believes in atheistism big bang.
@@davidscott3478 it’s mythology
Better question.
Who fucking cares
The implications of their discussion is much more important than this shallow ass materialist nonsense.
Alex tried his best. You can still have an engaging and meaningful discussion while still answering factual questions. I wish Jordan could get that.
There is no cut and dried answer. You believe it or you don't.
Dawkins was like: Was there really a 'boy who cried wolf'? Prove to me he existed!
He can't see the donut because he is too focused on the hole.
Here's my answer: No, it was a figurative story meant to deliver a point. Why can't Peterson say this? It's really annoying.
@@alexplatt7592 There is more evidence that he did exist than didn't. Why are you certain (without evidence) that he didn't exist?
@@alexplatt7592 you got it!
He said he didn't know. What more do you want?
@@MikesCarInfo It's not a question of whether or not someone existed. It's the story / mythology about them that's being discussed.
When we talk about science, nothing comes closer to it. Science is the father of all.
I get what they both say, but it’s like they’re on two fundamentally different wavelengths in terms of how they approach and think about the world. Both are of incredible value, but for different purposes.
and yet they synchronized in the end
They could have easily gotten on the same wavelength by defining the issues better and likely this conversation could have been done in 20 minutes.
The way Alex chimes in whenever there’s moment of silence is cracking me up
How can JP honestly say it doesn't matter whether it happened or not, when belief supposedly determines whether you go to hell?
It doesn't, not accepting that you are absolved of your sins and existing forever can only be hell.
Because it's so incredibly useful and profoundly powerful even if it was only a myth. He talks a lot about how psychology works and how we actually see the world on the most fundamental levels as a story. Like they've done science about that. The factual perception and processing is layered on top of instinct and story. When you're following the right story, you make better decisions, society functions better, you pay attention to facts in the most useful hierarchy, etc. Go watch vervaeke'meaning crisis series, and Peterson's Maps of Meaning and Biblical series, if you want clearer explanations.
@@Sopranohooper That's great, but there are people out there who think you'll go hell and be tortured for eternity if you don't think the stories are literally true. And these people will say this to their children, other family and friends. So I think JP should be clearer. Sure, they're profound stories, OK (so are many other non-religious stories by the way), but they almost certainly did NOT happen and that does NOT mean you'll go to hell.
You have to believe it to escape the matrix.
Hell would be mythology, as well to him, ofcourse
Dr. Peterson, the way to answer such questions is to turn them around: "Why do you ask that? Is that your litmus test for a valid interlocutor? Do you think a Virgin birth is impossible? How do you prove that impossibility scientifically?"
In the end, people like Dawkins must be faced with the truth that science is not the only standard of truth and they are not the arbiters of rationality. To say otherwise would be shamefully unscientific and pathetically irrational.
Didn’t philosophers figure out that statements could be meaningful without being true?
Well done Dr Peterson.
( 4:53 - 5:02 ) This is all you need to know!
JP needs a better short answer, which could be “Your question is designed as a set up for a follow up. Like when Jesus was asked about taxes. But I don't have the wisdom of Jesus. I can’t prove the virgin birth if I say Yes - because that is what your follow up question will be, to provide proof - but if I say No, then your follow up will be how can I accept the integrity of other elements of Christianity. So my position is I do believe in the importance and integrity of the Christ narrative and that is what matters most, indeed for me it is all that matters and it comes first. Your question which demands a Yes or No scientific answer is designed to torpedo my own fundamental belief in narrative by placing your fundamental belief in scientism as ontologically superior which obviously I reject and is why you are cornering me into giving a scientific answer to what I believe is a non-scientific narrative.”
In other words, “it’s a trap!”. Dawkins can’t see the forest through the trees.
Simple question: do you believe in miracles?
Answer: yes, I believe that could be possible, although I’m not sure.
The importance of the virgin birth is to highlight the importance of purity of a mother and the power that gives her newborn
Dr. Peterson, it is so impressive to me that you are willing to test your ideas in this way. You truly tread the delicate difficult path for the benefit of others. You are my intellectual hero.
The simplest answer is Isaiah 7 does prophecy a sign.. what is the sign? Look up every instance in which Alma is used in the Old Testament. Maybe not literally a virgin but indicative of a virgin. You don't need to unscramble it
Ngl seems like a waste of time debating whether or not the exact story of the bible truly happened.
I'm not religious but I won't deny the impact that Christianity had on building a better world.
Yes, that accent is real. Of course there is a broad range of understandability. For some in St. John’s it’s virtually undetectable. In other areas, it is very rapid and incomprehensible. Newfoundland English is a mix of rural West Country English (Southwestern English counties of Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, and surrounds), somewhat similar to what many would call a pirate accent, and mostly western Ireland accents. The Newfoundland accent varies greatly, traditionally, depending on where the people came from when the community was established and how isolated that community was.
It's not from a mistranslation of Isaiah. That's a hypothesis that Dawkin's agrees with, but it is by no means a fact.
I agree. Both the Hebrew word Almah and the Greek word Parthenos could be used to denote a maiden/unmarried woman.
This is what I came to comment. The semantic ranges of almah and parthenos overlap. You could perhaps make the argument that the context of the Isaiah prophecy rules out parthenos as a translation, but I would like to see Dawkins make the argument.
That also seems to me to misunderstand fulfillment of prophecy, which is the "filling up to the full" of the prophecy. So it isn't necessarily the exact, consciously intended meaning (according to the human prophet) of the prophecy in its original context. The Septuagint translators may have been drawing out a fuller meaning that Matthew then recognized.
Regardless, Christians reading that passage in Isaiah is unlikely to have caused them to suddenly believe that Jesus had no biological father and invent the story of the Annunciation and the virginal conception.
@@WeakestAvenger That is another really good point. The way in which Mathew means that Jesus "fulfilled" or "rendered to completion" Isaiah 7 I don't even think really hinges on the translation of that word. In any case as you put it the uses of the two words overlap.
But it is what the Bible says. Apart from Isaiah 7:14 Almah is translated as virgin just once, and as maiden (or similar) about 10 times. And to understand Isaiah 7:14 you need to read the rest of Isaiah 7 and 8, which is then clear that it is NOT talking about a virgin. There is actually a sex scene in Isaiah chapter 8!
@JohnBarr-r5b Maidens were virgins in that cultural context. The almah in Isaiah 7:11 was almost certainly a virgin when the prophecy was given. That is all that is required for Matthew's proposed deeper messianic fulfilment to work. That would be true even if your assumption is correct that the almah was Isaiahs wife, which I think is possible but uncertain since Ishiah already had an 8-year old kid. Unless she was his second wife, which is possible but not stated, she wouldn't be an almah. Also to understand the prophecy reading the rest of chapter 7 and 8 is not enough. You have to read chapters 7 to 12. The sign of Emanuel points to the root of the stump of Jessie, which is the messiah.
The difference is Richard asks the ‘What’ question and Jordon asks the ‘Why’. The source of the impasse here seems to be that they are both valid questions and equally important and one should not be prioritised over the other. This, in my view is why science and philosophy are the uncomfortable but inevitable marriage.
The only thing thats obvious here is that the question about how we deal with the oppression of women within the strictily "factual" paradigm was never answered... unfortunately the moderator jumped in
Alex: I don’t know is an answer
Jordan: I don’t know
Alex: you must understand what you’re being asked
"Damn i really enjoyed that movie. I learned i should cherrish life. Am going to hug my mother".
"There was no movie. It was just pixels that gave you the impression of something happening."
"B-but... i really learned from it and it was really important"
"Show me a paper that can ProooOooOOoooOove that!"
False equivalence. Most Christians actually believe in the truth propositions of their religions literally happening. The correct equivalence would be the first interlocutor getting out of the theater thinking they just watched a documentary and the second one explaining that it was just a movie.
Except that’s not what is happening here. Atheists are the one in fact suggesting that these stories be taken in the same vein as fictional morality tales. Peterson on the other hand is trying to maintain the illusion that something about these fictional events is factually accurate. He’s trying to immunize them from scrutiny and dismissal. A modern work of fiction, such as a movie, may be analyzed and dismissed as morally incoherent or unethical, but, for Peterson, not the Bible. That can’t be analyzed and dismissed.
I’ve heard the allegation that the term “virgin” simply means a woman who has not yet given birth; not that she has not had an extremely intimate encounter.
Which seems like a rather foolish suggestion considering the number of times it is suggested across the various New Testament texts that she had not had relations with a man
At it's origin, virgin in Hebrew simply meant a young woman. The attachment to sexual chastity was later included
@@fredheimuli5913And what's your evidence for that?
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718the bible.
@lukedegraaf1186 Thank you for proving you have no idea what you are talking about. The word in literally translated means "young unmarried woman". The argument is whether or not the connotation for "young unmarried woman" at that time and in that culture is "virgin" or young girl". Just saying "the bible" is a pointless statement.
Three people who reject The Truth trying to describe it. It’s like a mathematician trying to do math whilst rejecting the idea of numbers.
The Gospel is foolishness to the perishing.
Explain/show multiplication without a metaphor 😂.
"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."
2 Nephi 9:28
@@IanBakkerMormons actually watch Peterson? Didn’t see that coming
Imagine thinking you "know better" than these 3 minds.
What an incredibly self-centered and narcissistic take.
Reality beyond what we can reason and comprehend as true is very difficult to accept until that reality removes the veils over our mind.
JBP is the wisest thinker of our time, always a pleasure to listen to him. Great comparison with quantum physics, we don't understand how two particles can move at the same time even though they're millions of light years away. The same way we don't understand the Virgin Birth or other miracles.
@@croissantamandes only difference is we have evidence of one
Apples and oranges.
To date there has been no good evidence for any miracle, anywhere at any time. Zero, nothing.
We as a species are actually figuring out deep scientific questions. We are not substanciating claims about miracles.
And just like that, he made something impossible just unexplainable...
@@Esco87 What evidence do YOU personally have of how two particles 2000 miles away are interacting? In fact, what evidence do you have as for how the particles of my tiny pinky finger are interacting with each other? Please, answer me.
If you think what JBP is saying is profound, you should also check out Jonathan Pageau and the early Christian Church father's like St Maximos the Confessor.
Science derives from Africa and Egypt was the pinnacle of that demonstration Mr perterson