Off-Topic Podcasts

[Memnon]

Idk how many of you are into Philosophy of Logic, Anthropology, Psychology, Theology etc..

But this debate between Richard Dawkins & Jordan Peterson is a great example of how fundamental & intellectual dishonesty are weaponized by Dawkins in an attempt to pin JP into affirming the disjunct.

Jordan doesn't directly answer Yes or No to broad questions being asked because it's a surface level oversimplification of the discussion he actually wants to have.

For example, Dawkins & the host continuely ask him whether or not he believes in specific stories from the Bible as being factually true. JP says, (I'm paraphrasing) it doesn't really matter if they're true, or whether or not I believe in them, what is true is the impact they've had that have carried on for centuries that have had profound resonance into human patterning in our relations to how we deal with one another communally.

But Dawkins refuses to move off the "gotcha" questioning in asking about JP's personal beliefs. He does so in a classic atheist tactic of essentially saying, because there's no scientific proof, therefore the phenomena doesn't exist. But Jordan once again craftily explains that simply limiting Biblical texts to pure scientific empiricism completely misses the point of the text in the first place.

Dawkins is fixated on the literalist interpretation aspect of religious documents as it pertains to physical reality, while Jordan is trying to get at the depth that undergirds the story(stories) that have inculcated humanity for millennia.

Or in other words, Dawkins is concerned about the chemical compounds of paint, while JP is trying to get a deeper understanding of the meaning behind the painting.

I highly recommend this Pod if it's a topic you're interested in.

From 36:55 - 40:40, is when Peterson finally stops giving Dawk the benefit of the doubt & checkmates his logical fallacies.

 

[canes23]

Idk how many of you are into Philosophy of Logic, Anthropology, Psychology, Theology etc..

But this debate between Richard Dawkins & Jordan Peterson is a great example of how fundamental & intellectual dishonesty are weaponized by Dawkins in an attempt to pin JP into affirming the disjunct.

Jordan doesn't directly answer Yes or No to broad questions being asked because it's a surface level oversimplification of the discussion he actually wants to have.

For example, Dawkins & the host continuely ask him whether or not he believes in specific stories from the Bible as being factually true. JP says, (I'm paraphrasing) it doesn't really matter if they're true, or whether or not I believe in them, what is true is the impact they've had that have carried on for centuries that have had profound resonance into human patterning in our relations to how we deal with one another communally.

But Dawkins refuses to move off the "gotcha" questioning in asking about JP's personal beliefs. He does so in a classic atheist tactic of essentially saying, because there's no scientific proof, therefore the phenomena doesn't exist. But Jordan once again craftily explains that simply limiting Biblical texts to pure scientific empiricism completely misses the point of the text in the first place.

Dawkins is fixated on the literalist interpretation aspect of religious documents as it pertains to physical reality, while Jordan is trying to get at the depth that undergirds the story(stories) that have inculcated humanity for millennia.

Or in other words, Dawkins is concerned about the chemical compounds of paint, while JP is trying to get a deeper understanding of the meaning behind the painting.

I highly recommend this Pod if it's a topic you're interested in.

From 36:55 - 40:40, is when Peterson finally stops giving Dawk the benefit of the doubt & checkmates his logical fallacies.

Love this stuff. Thank you for sharing. Will definitely watch. Big fan of Christian apologetics.

 

[Memnon]

Love this stuff. Thank you for sharing. Will definitely watch. Big fan of Christian apologetics.

Peterson wasn't necessarily defending Christianity, he was drawing the parallel that there's minimal to no difference between the scientific explanation for the spread of an idea & the spiritual/metaphysical development in human archetypes.

Where Dawkins gets stuck is that he's completely constricted by the dogma of science & disregards anything that isn't derived through the scientific method.

But what Peterson proves & explains is that science itself has stated on a quantum mechanical level that not everything can be explained through observerable empiricism & that there are phenomena that occur in the natural world that have no explanation for its functioning.

JP was trying to get Dawkins to see that his idea of what he believes is strict Darwinism, is also extrapolated out metaphorically through Biblical texts. But Dawkins just gets hung up on tired tropes of trying to prove or disprove Biblical claims.

What this podcast showed me, is that Dawkins isn't actually as well-versed on history, Theology & psychology as he presents himself to be. He simply was unfamiliar with most of the literature that JP was referencing.

Pretty much, Dawkins is just a run of the mill average atheist that isn't very well read. He refuses to expose himself to ideas or literature that doesn't already align with ideology. He's very much a literalist & views the world/universe through a very narrow lens.

 

[Memnon]