I'm certainly a product of the new atheist movement from the 2000's and very much appreciate Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris for making intellectual skepticism a main part of the culture; however Jordan is trying to tease out something deeper, about how to live a more meaningful life and build a better society. Richard is so narrowly focused on what life is that he can't appreciate Jordan's position that mythology and archetypes can teach us how to live...
O'Connor trashed Harris and his view on their last Debate. O'connor has finally acknowledged that Atheist has 0 prescription for morality. They have ethical feelings but they are not grounded in anything other than I feel. He is on the verge of realizing what most atheist do on their death beds. At least now from they way I see it O'Connor has moved from atheist to Agnositc at a minimum.
Maybe, but I suspect he's just wary of Jesus smuggling. The reality is that what Jordan is describing fits within the concept of Memetic Evolution that Dawkins described back in 1977. It doesn't seem to point to anything supernatural, and on that ground Dawkins is right to be skeptical. But imo the failure of Dawkins is not recognizing that memes can be more than mere viruses and also analogous to the genes of multicellular life, and that's what religions effectively seem to be. The problem with both the religious and the atheist is they are still too trapped in the literalist interpretation and the relationship of such to supernatural claims. The reality seems to me that religion is actually more true than either side recognizes, but in a completely different way that either tends to imagine. It's very deep but also natural in origin. The atheist is right to be skeptical of the superstition and magical thinking but ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and the religious person projects the supernatural behind every example demonstrating the depth behind their allegories, committing a red herring. It doesn't follow.
Me too ...until I realized the answer to every question was an honest "we don't know ." That's the scientific expert consensus...it's true...but not a working model. Dawkins is using his left brain entirely and has no use for creativity or interest in the subjective experience of objective being. He doesn't see reality as it is...he sees it as he is. Which we all do to various degrees
Well said. Though I do think Big Rich would actually agree that myth can teach us how to live, it's just that he's always going to go hard after specific, literal doctrinal beliefs; which from a hard science worldview sortof HAVE TO be dismissed. It seems we humans can't squeeze enough "juice" out of myth and archetype unless we go hard in the paint toward literalism?
I think he’s willing to acknowledge that there’s plenty to learn from mythology but JP is a very highly educated high IQ modern man who’s most likely adding meaning to old stories that isn’t there. I mean the people who wrote the stories aren’t on JPs level. The other problem is that Christians take all of this literally and even JP knows that’s ridiculous. So even the guy defending Christianity isn’t by definition a Christian.
@@_Be_Still Absolutely, its so staggeringly genius, that its hard to deny some kind of divinity at work. Also if you like that take a look at how Jesus compares himself to jacobs ladder
why would you ( the lord ) call somebody if you knew they were not going to be chosen ? Sounds like narcissism and not God . concept : god is all knowing right ..... maybe he has the answer . The book of Jubilee says everyone makes it home ( even the fallen arch angel ) to pristine felicity with our God , . i wonder why the vaticanis ( house of dogs ) took that book out .........
@@RRR-AUM I've personally come to believe that to be chosen is to answer the call. So you could paraphrase the passage "many are called, but few respond". It's like the wedding feast that was prepared, and all those who were called to it began to make excuses, so they went into the highways and biways beckoning all who willed to come (Matt 22)
Dr Dawkins seems to suffer from the Darwin syndrome - the great Charles Darwin confessed that all the scientific thinking made it hard if not impossible for him to appreciate art, in the wider sense. As Wordsworth pointed out: "A color stands abroad On solitary hills That science cannot overtake, But human nature feels". The Bronze Serpent was indeed a literary masterstroke.
@@JohnTheRevelator11 That's a general tendency I've observed as a software engineer working with other engineers. I'm an oddball in that I'm a dual major in VisArts and CompSci and appreciate both STEM as well as the arts and humanities, and do find a type of pragmatic truth in both. I find more of what we might call "truth" in the vernacular in STEM, and "wisdom" in the likes of literature, art history, theology, and philosophy. However, I must admit that I'm not the brightest engineer. So many of my colleagues who are more skewed towards a pure STEM passion are brighter than me mathematically and scientifically. We also almost speak a different language: I love my metaphors and analogies (even though they're imprecise in ways that drives some of my colleagues nuts), since I'm more focused on "beauty/harmony" of design which is difficult to express in the quantifiable terms (I need more poetic devices) while they're purely focused on precision and "functionality/metrics".
@@JohnTheRevelator11 Something I'm wondering about is the degree of interest in people vs. things as JP repeatedly points out as a distinguishing characteristic between most men and most women (although JP is clearly an exception as a clinical psychologist). I think those of us who are more interested in people tend to gravitate towards the Arts & Humanities and be more "right-brained". It's through an interest in people that I became an illustrator before I became an engineer, since I saw illustration as not just the process of creating a "thing", but sharing and expressing my thoughts to people about what I thought was meaningful and beautiful: it's a form of communication for me. And then unlike most of my peers, I gravitated towards developing software as well but saw software engineering as just another art form, and code as a medium of artistic expression no different from a canvas. Also I suspect it's those most interested in people and human nature that tend to find subjects like literary fiction and history most fascinating. But the absolute best engineers and scientists tend to be those exceptionally interested in things over people, and I suspect that's why they tend to find the Arts & Humanities relatively much less interesting over hard sciences and empirical facts. Anyway, I hope you'll forgive my rambling but that's something I've always pondered about. It's a source of communication and interest conflict I have with many of my colleagues; watching JP's discussion with Dawkins reminded me a bit of my discussions with my fellow engineers.
Probably an exception to the "rule" but Feynman (theoretical physicist) was one of those. If you ever seen the video of him from his 1981 BBC interview, one clip here on RU-vid called "The Beauty of a Flower" is one that is kind of an antithesis to Darwin's point of view as you stated. His scientific thinking only made him more able to appreciate art, and beauty in the world.
I could be wrong but during the whole conversation I got the sense that Richard was just not following. He kept saying he was unimpressed but I think he either didn’t understand the gravity of what Jordan was asserting or what he was asserting period.
he seems to be unable to understand the concept of morality. morality is not something you can simply observe with the 5 senses, but it seems the only things he can conceptualize are things that can be observed with the 5 senses.
I think JP has a tendency to overestimate the gravity of what he's saying -- understandably so as a clinical psychologist who is focused on Logotherapy and its relation to literary history. Yet Dawkins has a tendency to underestimate it as well as a hardcore empiricist. There's some practical truth and set of values I find between these two for the most of us.
Thank you Jordan for bringing these stories to life. I've had conversations with a few friends about these ideas, that had made them care and made the Bible relevant in lives. I'm very excited about what you have in your sleeves in your upcoming book!
Yes, but you would appreciate it and have an open mind. Dawkins doesn’t even have 1 percent of an open mind unfortunately. It’s really sad, actually and it holds back his development in a huge way.
@@markr5251 yet equating analogies is prone to misleading conclusions. It doesn’t work in logic, in science, or in daily life. However, I do think it works well for human narratives, both cultural and internal. At least with honest qualifiers that convey the limitations of the analogy. You can say “yes it differs there, but the analogous parts I’ve identified hold true” and the meaningful discussion carries forward! Peterson often bites the bullet and says “this is *literally* is the same as that” and that can derail a conversation where the other party wants to stay grounded and stray from what sounds like flawed fantastical thinking. I really don’t think it’s a requirement whatsoever for Peterson to do this, but alas it’s his style. I like it, but I get frustrated when he fails to meet at a common ground and loses his listener.
Intense indeed. I find Jordan oppressive and overbearing in his manner and presentation. Not unlike the acquaintance; who when speaking to you, invades your personal space. But worse, he dictates. He is dictating his pearls of wisdom to one of the greatest minds on the planet - if I know the story and the pearls of wisdom Jordan is proffering - as if he just discovered it, then I’m sure Richard is fully aware... Richard is so calm and rational. I worry for Jordan’s mental health.
@@johnsinclair2672 Dawkins is the representation of all atheists. Single-minded, with no imagination to speak of. That doesn't mean he's unintelligent mind you, only that beyond building a spaceship he has no understanding whatsoever of what those ticking, rotting, organic fleshbags that will travel in that spaceship are or what makes them tick or struggle to survive. And please, do not worry about Peterson's mental health, though you are very kind to point out that you are worried, with no ulterior motive behind your claim to worry at all.
This entire conversation was just Peterson artistically expressing his opinions, and Dawkins saying that he's unimpressed. When it comes to the pursuit of truth, it's clear which kind of attitude has an advantage over the other.
I'm glad many other people are seeing the clear lack of comprehension from Dawkins. Peterson can talk about how its *true* that when people willfully confront what scares them, they become stronger and more resilient, and that there's a lot of academic literature on this too showing that it is the case and proving its validity. So that the Bible knew something so fundamentally *true* about the human condition 1000s of years ago is a marvel In response, Dawkins just simply says something like: "Um, uhhhh, its clear you like myths and stuff, but uh, i like facts, so yeh, like you know, DNA and like the uhh E = MC2 stuff" This is how the entire discussion goes, and its like he genuinely can't even comprehend what Peterson is talking about. I don't know if hes willfully being ignorant or if he simply just can't understand it
Well that seems to be an aspect of American culture. I have noticed an unwarranted deference from many Americans when simply engaging with someone with an RP British accent.
You can say evolution and adaptability is a necessary component of human history and I would agree. But I also think "humanity" is equally important, or maybe "spirit" is a better word. That intangible thing, hinged on conscience and emotion which creates things like stories, art and culture. It's the basis for what it means to be a human and Peterson does an excellent job at relating to people through his analysis of the Bible by bringing it into this "humanity" context. Dawkins doesn't seem at all in tune with that part and he comes off as irrationally robotic and lifeless. I feel sorry for him.
If you all heard the entire conversation , Dawkins eventually meets Peterson halfway. Yes, he is cold and disconnected from anything that isn’t grounded in scientific, factual and empirical but he eventually gets curios. I think he came in looking for a debate while Jordan came in seeking his thoughts and input. Dawkins’ stance has always been around the burden of proof on people that claim sacredness of the texts to demonstrate empirically that the Bible , the stories and its claims are factual and demonstrate scientific evidence. Jordan however manages to open him up to the idea that the stories , archetypes and metaphors within the texts regardless of their historical accuracy or authenticity have meaning, substance and the power to evolve over time across the various generations, cultures in a way that is not only consistent but more so important for the future of humanity and western civilization. The both agree what Jordan describes happening in educational institutions and universities is detrimental. Eventually in their conversation the common ground they find is around how post modern thinking has given rise to a nihilistic bent due to their departure from judeo -Christian influence on art, philosophy and even science , which Dawkins stakes his entire existence on).
Looking forward to listening to the whole thing. Don't know why people are surprised that it was not 100% smooth sailing with Dawkins, especially if you heard the talks with Peterson and Harris years ago, long before he was associated with Daily Wire or other stuff. The first talk between Harris and Peterson was a philosophical gridlock lol (I think it was on Harris' Waking Up podcast).
@@hajsh67 I don’t either but I know I was projecting back at Dawkins a feeling of contempt initially when I was watching the whole thing because it seemed like he was trying to play gotcha with Peterson but as the conversation unfolded I realized he’s not doing that. He’s just sincerely married to his idea(whether or not it has a negative affect on his attitude or curiosity). He is committed to not show any willingness to hear topics outside of what interests him. Eventually he had a moment where the idea of stories evolving peaked his interest and he admitted it. Maybe he dint meet halfway but he showed some sort of deference which was otherwise absent in the entire conversation. The regular troll comments in the full length video were worth the read themselves lol
@@govindprabhu3886 Yeah I still haven't watched the whole thing. I've read a couple of Dawkins' books and watched/listened through Peterson's Maps of Meaning and Personality courses. I know already he would have better luck talking to Sam Harris again lol. I really wish Christopher Hitchens was still with us though. I remember Sam Harris on his podcast saying that Hitch would have voted for Clinton in 2016, despite his book "No One Left to Lie to", and I call BS on that lol. A very interesting person left this planet too early.
The Bible states at Job 26:7 about God: "He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, Suspending the earth upon nothing"...That was written 3500 years ago. I'd say that was a startling scientific insight for its time, considering man wouldn't discover that for himself until around 300 years ago.
In Genesis it says God created two lights. One greater one to rule the day and a lighter one to rule the night. That's a big issue considering there is only one Sun and that its light simply reflects off the moon.
@@lzaslanHave you been to the moon? How do you know? Many people say the Bible is fake because people lie but suddenly people are now truthful because they say they're scientists? They can't decide how old the earth actually is or even where the first homo sapiens come from but yeah...they're totally truthful because....science.
@@shanchan8247 I can rule out the moon having its own light because if it did, there would be a full moon every single night. I am an ex believer that realized a lot of issues with the Christian religion. I don't defend science or its claims.
@@Hellish2050 What about between your ears? Did you fill it with worthwhile stuff? William Shatner; "Everything I had thought was wrong. Everything I had expected to see was wrong. I had thought that going into space would be the ultimate catharsis of that connection I had been looking for between all living things-that being up there would be the next beautiful step to understanding the harmony of the universe. In the film “Contact,” when Jodie Foster’s character goes to space and looks out into the heavens, she lets out an astonished whisper, “They should’ve sent a poet.” I had a different experience, because I discovered that the beauty isn’t out there, it’s down here, with all of us. Leaving that behind made my connection to our tiny planet even more profound. It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna . . . things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind. It filled me with dread. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral. I learned later that I was not alone in this feeling. It is called the “Overview Effect” and is not uncommon among astronauts, including Yuri Gagarin, Michael Collins, Sally Ride, and many others. Essentially, when someone travels to space and views Earth from orbit, a sense of the planet’s fragility takes hold in an ineffable, instinctive manner. Author Frank White first coined the term in 1987: “There are no borders or boundaries on our planet except those that we create in our minds or through human behaviors. All the ideas and concepts that divide us when we are on the surface begin to fade from orbit and the moon. The result is a shift in worldview, and in identity.” Stay strong. God bless.
What a fresh conversation this was, Alex did and OUTSTANDING job too, PERFECT conditions made by the three of them to converse complex and difficult matters in an honest and unbiased manner. INFINITE PROPS
I can't imagine listening to something so fundamentally human and so profound and unexpected and just blithely saying "I'm not impressed." At that point, you're just choosing to not be impressed. To harden your heart so as to not risk being convinced of something deeper than surface level.
I wish that Peterson would just own himself as a psychologist, and say 'hey l'm a psychologist and this stuff really interests me, I think that the bible is extremely fascinating and valuable and what's even more interesting to me, is that I can see this from a non-religious perspective - and through engaging with it academically and in my own life, quite ironically, it inspires something religious within me. And all I know is that the deeper I go with this stuff, the deeper the feeling of religiosity becomes. - did it historically happen? I don't know, but the possibility excites me'
This reminded me of the Exodus series where Dennis Prager was so impressed that the 10 commandments could be divided into 2 groups of 5 that it could only have been from divine intervention? I don't think Dawkins would be much impressed with that either
Dawkins seems to be a 100% literalist. As if he lacks the capacity to extrapolate meaning and wisdom unless it is precisely spelled out for him. He's chock full of knowledge, but bereft of wisdom. His primary interest and sole goal seems to be making sure he is well positioned to exclaim, "gotcha!" before he enters a discussion. Otherwise, the discussion holds no interest for him.
when you begin to realize that religious scriptures are unscientific nonsense, you no longer are beholden to their "profound wisdom," and you can actualize your potential without scrutinizing and contemplating the meaning of tattered parchment
Dr. Peterson, you should really interview Dr. James Tour. He's a Jewish convert to Christianity and is also one of the top 50 scientists in the world. He has his own RU-vid channel under his name. He has so much biblical knowledge and you should really consider interviewing him.
Oh there's a scripture I don't know where it is about how God closes off revelation to those not willing or interested in understanding or whose heart is not prepared yet to accept the deeper things. Something like that. Peterson is a brilliant mind and a sincere hearted person earnestly searching for the right answers. I just learned something from him here I never saw before. Thank you Jordan.
Several. Conscious seared with hot iron. Branded as well.1 Timothy 4:2 Lacking ears to hear and eyes to see. Isaiah 6:10,Jeremiah 5:21,Ezekiel 12:2,Matthew 13:15,Acts 28:27,Romans 11:8 Genesis 37:18-33 josephs' brothers sparing his life to sell him into slavery, leading to their salvation. There are more. God bless.
Would love to hear Jordan's thoughts about the Israelites worshiping the snake years later in 2 Kings 18. Is that a parallel with modern Christians and the cross?
From what I understand from the conversation is that the Israelites were overly complaining about conditions of life, until when snakes were added to the picture, that was really when the the people really understood hardship and had something to worry about. Which then in the bronze statue, it was a reminder that all of the problems they had before, were imaginary until you actually are faced with actual dangers in life (kinda like how boredom, or miss aligned meaning can make life seem a lot worse then it is). Which is the understanding of traumas and in my opinion the true nature of behavior that is out to bite you. Which to me the Dark Triad Traits beautifully assists the backing of religion through the 7 deadly sins, and the two ideologies aren't as different as one seems.
As someone who has dabbled in atheism, have even read several of Dawkins books, there is nothing more annoying than those who are so sure of their atheism. I’ve met individuals who effectively made fun of others who not only believed in God but those who would say I don’t know. It was enough to point me back towards belief in God.
I think it’s interesting how Jordan Peterson connects the bronze serpent story to exposure therapy and facing fears. It’s a unique take on how ancient stories still have relevance today. However, I can see why Richard Dawkins might push back, questioning why we need religious narratives to explain psychological concepts. It feels like a clash between old wisdom and modern secular thinking, but both perspectives bring something valuable to the table.
I loved that dialogue. Excellent Jordan! God would be even more delighted to hear you affirm your convictions to those who ask. Then they would have to reason what contributing realities they are not considering to the propositions of Christianity. If God can make the world and mankind, having Himself be revealed through the womb of a woman is an ordinary feat. Astoundingly, I am persuaded that Richard was curiously interested in the Divine. He wants evidence for something miraculous. A personal testimony answers this inquiry.
A wise genius scientist who has always linked science, history, politics, religion, psychology, and humanity. On the other hand, arrogant evolutionists claim to be scientists, but I have never heard him discuss science other than to blame faith and religion.
Anyone who has difficulty with Jordan Peterson's take on the mythological should watch the film Life Of Pi. It's a beautiful film and a wonderful lesson in thinking about life symbolically as opposed to literally. Writer Robert Bly did some very important work in this area in his books Iron John and The Sibling Society as well.
Is it possible that a poor ability to focus can lead to ramped up anxiety, and conversely, improving focus can dial it back? (assuming focus can be a fundamental problem)
I'm rather uneducated but have been around a bit in my life. I remember debate between Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell. I think Dawkins is a human lite weight.
The fact that dawkins is reluctant to believe the truth of the biblical stories doesn’t imply his lack of understanding. As he said, if there was evidence given to indicate agreement or prediction of a contemporary known scientific truth without coming back to a moral lesson, such as the earth revolving around the sun, he wouldn’t hesitate to humor the validity of that section of the biblical text. This notion has been echoed by other scientific thinkers, like Bill nye, to suggest that science can expand and retract the known truth where religion is unable to do so.
The reason that Christ uses that narrative is that the people of Israel that story is well ingrained like much of their history. it was very much a cultural reference. The symbolism in that goes deeper than what Peterson ever thought. Christ was saying the thing he knew they would understand in that if you turned to Christ he would save them. The problem is that the Jews were looking for a conquering messiah not a sacrificial one. They were looking for physical rescue not spiritual.
Dr Dawkins is so remarkably incurious and unwilling to engage ideas outside of his limited worldview that he makes the ‘conversation’ far less interesting. But it’s worth listening to just to understand the depth of Dr Peterson’s premise.
The commentator in the middle also missed a point. Jordan doesn't primaliy make the point of divine authorship. Jordan rather points out that humans can kinda develop total fearlessness and hope through the victory over death by Christ and by that we humans can face death without being terrified, leaving the question what actually is there left to be afraid of? Nothing. Where is Dawkins' response to that thought?...
Morality IS evolutionary. It surprises me that Dawkins can’t see this. Moral discoveries in ancient history had more utility than scientific discoveries. You can’t even get to science until you have a foundation of morality to provide peace and stability.
@@Youttubeuser20932 you didn’t understand what I was saying at all. If you live in a tribal environment where it’s constantly kill or be killed, no one is going to be conducting scientific experiments. You need morality before pretty much anything else.
@@bmardiney sure, but in the same way you can’t have broad culturally inherited moral narratives without technological advancement, such as agriculture that enables large cohesive societies. Neither of these are actually strictly true - a small hunter gatherer tribe can have passed-down oral traditions, and even a loan hunter or forager can conduct experiments with plant matter and fire to discover useful medicine, ointments, psychoactive compounds.. or systematically test different materials for hardness, ability to be sharpened, etc for tools and weapons
Dawkins needs to explain how it is that people who have not one iota of understanding of quantum physics can have profound wisdom and understanding of the bible. I was not taught how to understand the bible at all....but yet I understand it.
Turns out a scientists brain is like a screwdriver and an intellectuals is like a good multitool. The screwdriver might be slightly more comfortable with a screw but can’t do fuck all else lol
I think Dawkins is a scientist and Peterson is an artist/philosopher. Jordan is an artist of word. We really need scientists but we really need artists too. I dont support dichotomy between those two. We really need both of them and we need to understand their place and their value.
Me: why is water boiling in Johns kitchen? Dawkins: because the boiling point of water at sea level is blah blah blah John: I'm making tea Science just can't answer the types of questions most care about. They aren't within its scope.
Its quite interesting that how people react , I was skimming through all the comments in Jordons channel and Alex channel , interesting thing is everybody is defending what they believe in , Its clear that people watching Alex channel has a more tendency of defending Richard while people who sees Jordon has a tendency of defending Jordon. Its like a clash between philosophers and Materialists. I found the whole debate interesting, and Fully understand how both of them were talking from their perspective.
Jason Padgett was struck in the head and woke up with the ability to draw theoretical molecules that turned out later to be accurate. How did he see that Richard? A man can gain access to see the quantum realm but DNA is impossible?
I thought it was unfair for Dawkins to respond with "It doesn't impress me" when Jordan took the effort of explaining the overlap between a bunch of seemingly unrelated themes. At minimum, Dawkins could've at least acknowledged Jordan's attempt at finding synchronicity instead of just immediately dismissing it without second thought.
Jesus was the first one to make that correlation!! YOUR understanding of the bronze serpent!! 😊 As a metaphor perfect, but in reality, it was a thing of brass!!😂
Death confronted rebuked repent the kingdom of heaven has come near to you. Life addressed. Snake and Christ wow! I'm impressed. Can you confront me? I am. I await a union. Blessed by Jesus Christ His name.
The “serpent on the pole” represents “the destructive nature of sin.” It’s written: “God made Him (Christ) who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christ (the IAM Who IAM) created our world and took responsibility for the “Fall of Man” at the Cross. Jesus became Sin for us. Now… does that mean everyone is healed of the curse of Sin. NO! Only those who look to Redemptive Work of the Cross where Jesus took our sins and imparted to us His Righteousness! Consider this: If you miss the train by a millisecond and I miss the train by a million years, the consequence is the same; we have both missed the train are left under the destructive nature of sin. Healing for mind, soul and body comes via the Holy Spirit when we accept Christ as Lord and Savior (from Sin’s destructive work and ultimately, Hell! Note people like Alice Cooper (Kiss) who realize the miraculous healing and redemptive work of Christ Jesus in their lives!
The Bible was enough for Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, and for many more scientist, but Dawkins he constantly says he’s not impressed. He’s definitely in the spectrum especially if he’s not able to comprehend what Dr. Peterson was trying to tell him
Such as you need to resist the devil to have resilience to his traps and snares. One needs to take some hard licks and then they can be greater those spiritual punches in life.
I don't need any one text to validate or give me a understanding of spiritual reality and of human existence and condition. Yet I do see it in many forms of religious texts there's a mirroring and some have different qualities that enhance others. I just find it odd even if it's just a manifestation within our own consciousness, people seem to ignore a metaphysical reality that's applicable to life.. I know it to be true from direct experience but I understand that's far and few between that can honestly genuinely say that..
EVEN tho' i've always seen the snake connection to christ, in my own way, since youth--rolfing, homeopathy are instances of this (which weren't mentioned)--dawkins's questioning, "WHY are these people always speaking about something figuratively, the form is there to see??" struck me in a way that i thought was fascinating. what DO we do when thru the (supposed) "atheistic observation" we get an epiphany or SENSE a deeper truth?? that confuses us & leads us to all levels where we have to look @ where these ideas, in some semse, are combining . . .
Totally. And you have to understand the context of the biblical text to come from objective scientific method… You have the revelation of the math and science within the text. Step 1, Dawkins: Observe, Not Deny…. 😎
Prof if you can address reading the Bible from revelations to Genesis, since it was initially written in Hebrew, such that Genesis is the last book you read, and revelation the first, the most important book must be revelation because it reveals the truth
If you had a choice: a proof of God in scientific terms or a proof of God in fictional stories, which one would you pick? The obvious answer to this question puts these 2 people in their place. One caters to the current intellect of the masses for clout and the other takes the endeavour of objective truth to its serious conclusion.
I have a lot of time for both these men, perhaps favouring JP's position/views a little more. But, sometimes I'd like JP to just chill a little more. Find his inner Thomas Sowell and put a lid on his emotion a little more..
