In this clip, Richard Dawkins questions Jordan Peterson about his belief in the truth claims of the Bible, specifically asking whether Jesus died for our sins.
Maybe. I agree, technically speaking, but I'd rather Richard not be the on to platform him. Save my Damascus steel for when the opponent isn't using Nerf foam. 😉
Too bad Peterson won't just preface his comments by saying, "On a metaphorical level," or "In the Platonic realm." It would save everyone a lot of time and trouble. But then again, not everyone values clarity and brevity.
When you don’t want to answer the question, simply change the subject… over and over again. Thank you Richard, for always shining a beacon of light at the truth.
The virgin birth is only found in Luke and Matthew. No mention in John, nothing in Paul or any of the other books of the New Testament. The church father Origen, in referencing the Old Testament, claimed that the lowest understanding of scripture was literal, and the deeper truth was spiritual and allegorical, and if things defied the natural order, they were probably allegorical. A prime example was the tale of Jonah and the large fish. Few learned Jews or early Christians would believe it to be literal. Dawkins’s comments at the end of this video shows he understands the difference of his and Jordan’s approach to truth. But it’s a false binary. Holding a respect for myth and allegory as a vehicle of truth is not opposed to the material truth of hard science. The development of human consciousness required both.
Peterson is a lesson in casuistry. He stands as a shining example when hit with religious questions. He purposely confounds simple questions with straw men and specious reasoning so you’re so exhausted by the end, you let him ramble. Dawkins just sitting back, rather silent, always seeing through the murkiness… I love. Diluted modern versions of shared cultural traditions from the Bible are not the Iron Age book itself. This heavy borrowed, defanged version can be tolerated unlike its source material in full practice and Peterson is unable to come to grips with that.
Interesting that we should invoke quantum mechanics and all of its phenomena as demonstrated in our fourth dimensional world. This would imply there is a “black box” that has bearing on our reality that we cannot measure or even peer into all of its activities. Potentially therein might lie the answers for all of the things that humans gravitate towards. Never say never!
I honestly don't think it's worth engaging with Peterson. The signal to noise ratio is the worst.
It wouldn't be worth engaging him in private over a pint. But given he has such a huge following I think public engagements like this are valuable.
Maybe. I agree, technically speaking, but I'd rather Richard not be the on to platform him. Save my Damascus steel for when the opponent isn't using Nerf foam. 😉
Too bad Peterson won't just preface his comments by saying, "On a metaphorical level," or "In the Platonic realm." It would save everyone a lot of time and trouble. But then again, not everyone values clarity and brevity.
When you don’t want to answer the question, simply change the subject… over and over again. Thank you Richard, for always shining a beacon of light at the truth.
Richard: “Do you believe Jesus was born a virgin?” Jordan: dodges answer 😂😂
I like Jordan but this is the first time I’ve heard him say questionable things…
The virgin birth is only found in Luke and Matthew. No mention in John, nothing in Paul or any of the other books of the New Testament. The church father Origen, in referencing the Old Testament, claimed that the lowest understanding of scripture was literal, and the deeper truth was spiritual and allegorical, and if things defied the natural order, they were probably allegorical. A prime example was the tale of Jonah and the large fish. Few learned Jews or early Christians would believe it to be literal. Dawkins’s comments at the end of this video shows he understands the difference of his and Jordan’s approach to truth. But it’s a false binary. Holding a respect for myth and allegory as a vehicle of truth is not opposed to the material truth of hard science. The development of human consciousness required both.
Peterson is a lesson in casuistry. He stands as a shining example when hit with religious questions. He purposely confounds simple questions with straw men and specious reasoning so you’re so exhausted by the end, you let him ramble. Dawkins just sitting back, rather silent, always seeing through the murkiness… I love. Diluted modern versions of shared cultural traditions from the Bible are not the Iron Age book itself. This heavy borrowed, defanged version can be tolerated unlike its source material in full practice and Peterson is unable to come to grips with that.
The Jungian mystic actually believes the impossible narrative.
Interesting that we should invoke quantum mechanics and all of its phenomena as demonstrated in our fourth dimensional world. This would imply there is a “black box” that has bearing on our reality that we cannot measure or even peer into all of its activities. Potentially therein might lie the answers for all of the things that humans gravitate towards. Never say never!
Mr. Dawkins, i am a fan of yours from Twitter and Facebook. Where do I watch the video of this debate with Jordan Peterson?
You can find the full discussion on youtube. :)