Speaker 1: On the Twitter and YouTube.
Speaker 2: Jim Bob has just joined just in the nick of
I'm not at Jim up to the stage.
Speaker 1: Sure it is there a live link on YouTube?
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, you can just go to my page and
you can just share what's happening in Jim Bob.
Speaker 3: Hey, what's going on? Can you guys hear me?
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, yeah, we can hear you.
Speaker 2: We just just went live as you as you jumped in,
So all right cool, how are you both?
Speaker 4: Welcome back to the channel.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: So just for those of the viewers that haven't caught
out last interviews, if you guys want to just shut
out your yourselves and what you're doing and what your
channels are, starting with you Jimbob.
Speaker 3: Yeah great. I'm made by Jim Bob. My channels made
by Jimbob. My Instagram is made by Jim Bob. I'm
a mostly a satirical cartoonist. I'm a weekly contributor to
The Washington Examiner, and I do live streams just about
every day on a variety of topics and whatnot.
Speaker 1: And Jake yeah, Jay DIYer. I do a lot of
breakdowns of everything from geopolitics to Hollywood film, symbolism, esoterica,
we do comedic stuff. I do breakdowns of big geopolitical books,
the global elite writings, and I host the fourth Hour
of Alex Jones every Friday for the last four years.
Speaker 4: Awesome.
Speaker 2: So the reason why I wanted to get you guys
in today is because I need some reinforcements when it
comes to doing this. Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins debate interview.
I don't know what would you guys call it. It
was kind of just a thing, wasn't it.
Speaker 1: Podcast?
Speaker 3: I don't I don't know what it was?
Speaker 5: A chat?
Speaker 3: I mean Jay touched on it. It was It was
interesting that Alex has become sort of like the chosen
or inadvertently chosen, like mediator, moderator of these topics, which
I don't I don't you know. I don't consider myself
someone who's earned the position either, But it was interesting,
like he's like now the default go to and he's
like this young chap with these old guys chatting. I
thought that was funny. Jay noticed that too during his dream.
Speaker 4: Yeah, for sure, and it was an interesting one.
Speaker 2: I think the thing that went over my head was
all the talking about symbolism, and I think we're just
going to skip the whole part about memes at the
start and then go into a little bit more of
the back and forth. But for a lot of people,
this was the sort of super.
Speaker 6: Bowl of.
Speaker 2: Sort of religious religious debates. What did you guys think
about it overall? I mean, Jay, you did a massive
stream on it. Did you think that this was something
that was enlightening or did you find it frustrating? I
personally found it a little bit frustrating at times.
Speaker 1: A little bit of both. I thought that I was
hoping for more of a debate, more of a butting
of heads and really a critiquing of the positions. We
had a little bit of that, but it reminded me
a lot of the Matt Dillahunty Peterson debate from a
while back, because we'll get these really you know, rhetorical
flourishing back and forth type thing going on, especially with Peterson,
and then he will get somebody kind of close to
being on the ropes and then you'll back off. And
I think that's the most frustrating thing about you know,
when Jordan Peterson's doing a quasi debate. Same thing with
the with the dill Honey situation, because there's two or
three times where he really could have just made dil
Honey look stupid. But maybe he's saving you know, the
relationship or something like that. He thinks that it's better
to be on good terms and if he makes him
look stupid, then they won't discuss anymore. But I think overall,
Peterson made a couple, you know, significant mistakes. I think
that said, uh, Dawkins look really dumb. I think Peterson
was a lot off, a lot smarter. And we also
saw this new kind of like Vince McMahon Chad Peters.
Speaker 3: Often like he's like leaning up to him.
Speaker 1: He was like he's using chalk, He's using my sponsored
chalk or something because he's like he's like getting heated,
and like he looks like about the snap, you know,
dropping off over the table and snap or next.
Speaker 7: But yeah, Inva like sort of just like he's about
to die.
Speaker 1: But it was interesting but a little underwhelming.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, and Jimbob but he's famously sort of evasive
about his views on Christianity and whether he believes that
things are true or not. Yeah, I think that there
was any more sort of insight into what Jordan Peterson's
actual position is well, during this thing.
Speaker 3: I think Jordan Peterson is drawn to symbology and metaphor,
which is important and not absent in the Biblical view,
but he has this really tough time. He ends up
being sort of a naturalist in the end because when
you when you when you corner him on something like miraculous,
which there are tons of things considered miraculous, but even
something as simple and as dogmatic as the virgin birth,
He's like, well, it depends on birth, you know. He's
like constantly reinventing some way that he could navigate through
that door where he's not gonna seem to his audience,
who are maybe more rationalist thinkers, they're not gonna he's
not gonna scare them away. I feel like there's this
weird tiptoeing, walking on eggshells, uh for Peterson to keep
his base, which is kind of split between uh maybe
even maybe not even an even split, but definitely split
between sort of liberal, liberal leaning atheists and then sort
of maybe hard Christians and then these soft Christians in between.
He's kind of has them all, and I think he
kind of protects them. Not to attribute motive it's just
that it would makes sense from his position where he
doesn't take things too far as opposed to just biting
the bullet, right, just just bite the bullet if you
think a god position is rational at all, if you
hold a position, I'm not sure why biting the bullet
on a couple of subsequent miracles post creation is somehow,
you know, controversial. It's it's bizarre. It's bizarre to watch
that same thing with Ben Shapiro. He was famously asked
by Joe Rogan do you believe in miracles? And he
essentially said, well, yeah, I believe in the kind that
have naturalistic explanations, and you're like, that's that's really not
the position. You got to bite the bullet and just
be okay saying yes, I believe miracles exist, they don't
always comport with a physical laws of physics or a
regularity of nature.
Speaker 4: Do you reckon that?
Speaker 2: There's something to do with the fact that Jordan Peterson
spent much of his life in the sort of academic
world in the sciences that that he doesn't want to
admit that, for example, miracles.
Speaker 4: Are real, because that's that's his background.
Speaker 1: Jay, Yeah, I definitely think there's a huge component. We
often forget that, and he brings us up a few
times in this discussion about these sort of rabbit trails
of you know, obscure sort of research that he's done
on various types. I forget even what he's what he's
parts of the brain or something, and hypothalamus research he's done,
and and so you know, he does have this one
foot in signs in the domain of science and peer
review and all that. Maybe he thinks that a lot
of the audience would you know, no longer find him
credible if he admits the miraculous. But the weird part,
as I think, you know Jim Bob saying, is that
given all the other stuff that he's saying and arguing, like,
that's not that much further down the road, you know
what I mean, It's like you're already kind of saying
that there's these archetypes and they have and I mean,
one thing that was different I noticed in this discussion
versus say that the personality lectures that he did maybe
ten years ago, because I very recently went through many
of those into tons of notes. You know, at that
time he was very reticent to talk about metaphysics at all.
He would shy away from anything metaphysical. He wanted to
keep it in the domain of psychology. And maybe that's
just because it was used in a class. But now
he's like.
Speaker 5: Oh, ontology, metaphysics, you know, spiritual.
Speaker 1: It's like we got It's like we have a new
clone Vince McMahon metaphysical Peterson, which is a better version
of Crying Peterson from a year. Yeah, but it's still, like,
like Jim Bob said, it's like, you're already pretty much
in the domain of emitting things that the people that
you don't want to alienate already consider crazy. So like,
why do you even care about alienating a bunch of
these academic idiots.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I see. I kind of I agree
with that, And I think again, he has this, he
has this habit of like making really poetic accounts for symbols,
and he's all he's always he's always close to almost
pre supping, if you will, the opponent, but he's just
he kind of doesn't push the button for the elevator,
and you're like, dude, you're already there.
Speaker 1: Just like, just.
Speaker 3: Go for it, just go for the jugular. And I
know it's annoying. And I know it's basically the stick
in the wheel of every debate, but it's a necessary
stick in the wheel. And he just kind of doesn't
really He kind of throws stuff at the wheel like
little dust.
Speaker 4: Have us.
Speaker 3: Just put the stick in the wheel.
Speaker 2: Bro, Yeah, I kind of want to focus on that today.
So we're going to review the actual conversation shortly, and
I want to review and you guys can just tell
me when to pause when you think there's a point
to be made by Jordan Peterson, and especially with pre
supping as well. And just before we go there, Jay,
maybe do you want to give us a bit of
a sort of rundown about what presuppositional apologetics is and
how it can be used effectively.
Speaker 1: Yeah. This is basically a unique approach to the domain
of apologetics, which is which means giving a defense for
your faith or for your beliefs. And it's a kind
of indirect style of argumentation first, where you're not so
much concerned with piling up evidences or data from sense,
experience or whatever. You're taking a roundabout approach to where
you're going to compare two worldviews as a whole. So
it's a holistic approach to impairing systems and competing beliefs
and whatnot to see on that grand kind of scale,
which worldview can make sense of the basic components of
our belief systems. So we all have, I would argue,
basic beliefs about epistemology, which is what we know or
how we go about proving or grounding our knowledge claims
and beliefs. We have some kind of ethic which relates
to rights and wrongs, morals, aesthetics, et cetera. And we
have some view about metaphysics, which just has to do
with what exists, what's real, what's not real, angels, souls,
et cetera. Those three things make up what we oftentimes
call a worldview, and they're kind of loosely the branches
of philosophy. And so when you kind of think about
those three things linked together.
Speaker 6: They.
Speaker 1: Everybody has some worldview. But the key thing about presubsisitional apologetics,
or what's called the transcendental argument for God is you're
kind of of taking those three components and you're saying, Okay,
whose system whose world views can account for the basic
beliefs that everyone has in those three three domains.
Speaker 4: And so when we don't do that.
Speaker 2: It's sort of just it's just like the conversation starts
at a level where we just sort of grant that octe.
Yeah yeah, and so where we just grand morality, we
grant ethics and all these sorts of things.
Speaker 1: And the problem with the when we don't do that
approach is that you oftentimes end up just kind of
throwing competing claims back and forth. You know, I'm over here,
you know, I believe in this theological doctrine. The atheist
believes in his doctrines. We keep we throw science papers
and claims and facts and this researcher and what he
wrote this book, that book, and we don't really get
anywhere because it's just because everyone's reading the information the
data from their paradigm. So this is a more direct,
ironically indirect approach through questioning the paradigm itself.
Speaker 2: Okay, cool, cool, We're going to get out to the
first bit just after reading a few super chats. We're
gonna read probably tens five or ten and up or
something like that. Rachel Wilson in the chat says, good
to see all my favorite smart boys whose names start
with jay on one stream yep, there's the reason why
we didn't invite Andrew, and that's because his name doesn't
start with Jay.
Speaker 4: So very simple, Jen M all right, Cool.
Speaker 2: If you guys have any super chats, feel free to
send them in Cool.
Speaker 4: All right, let's get this started, fellas.
Speaker 2: I'm going to start with this bit here, and if
you guys feel like there's a good point to be made,
just let me know and and I'll pause it.
Speaker 8: I mean, one of the things I wanted to explore
with you because I think this is an idea that's
at the core of the culture.
Speaker 2: Just quickly, guys, just chuck in the chat. Why if
you're happy with one point five why if you're happy
with one point five speed? I'll put it down to
one point two five for now though, because might be
a little bit fast. With Peterson's new Chad sort of persona.
Speaker 8: For conflicts, the post modern type seem to have stumbled
onto something which I actually think is true. And they're
not the only discipline that's come to this realization, because
you can see it emerging in neuroscience and in AI
and in robotics as well, that we see the world
of facts through something that when described as a story.
Because we have to prioritize our perceptions, we have to
prioritize facts. And as far as I can tell, a
story is a verbal account of of how our perceptions
and the facts that we encounter are prioritized. So, for example,
when you go see a movie, the movie has a hero,
and what the writers do is they show you how
the hero prioritizes his perceptions, what he attends to, and
how he acts, and you derive from that the story
of his life and his ethic, and the idea that
we have a story that we have to organize our
perceptions in priority, and that the description of that organization
is a story. That's a very revolutionary idea. And I
think the postmodernists got that right. And I think that's
why we have a culture war going on, at least
in part is because idea that we see the world.
Speaker 1: This relates directly to Tag. And this is actually a
really crucial point, and it's one of Peter. Tag is
the same thing as presep or apologetics, or the idea
that the arguments that we might make for God are
best handled at that paradigm worldview level. Because it's a
paradigm worldview question, and this is One of the key
insights that Peterson does have and I think pushes a
lot which I do like, and that's this idea that
this model of how humans operate and understand the world
in a story beginning, middle and end, that's a much
more natural and much more consistent way that we as
humans read the world. We almost seem to be constituted
this way to read the world that way, rather than
the idea of reading the world the way the Dawkins thinks,
as if it's all abstracted data. There's a place for
abstracted data and the scientific research. But what Dawkins would
think is that the scientific method as a as a tool,
I would believe is actually a grand narrative explanation. It
can tell you about everything. It's the best way to
go about knowing anything. And Peterson is countering that, I
think you're in a brilliant way by pointing out that no,
actually the best way to understand the world is like
a story, and that's why humans have always understood the
world in some story.
Speaker 3: For him, right, I would add that him correctly meeting
Dawkins is where where he's at is everything story? Everything's
meme based The question I always ask the Dawkins types
or the Dawkins disciples, is why ought we pursue a
true story as opposed to a story that just functionally works?
And they could never answer that because if you ask
them from their view why ought we pursue truth? They're
they're going to have to reduce it to some sort
of pragmatic, pragmatic or utility approach, which ends up being arbitrary.
The Christian can say, fine, my goal is xyz, my
goal is theosis. That's my that's the story, my truth.
You could just kind of my truth them back, and
they have no place to go, and that's a it's
not just about kind of steel manning Hawkins and saying
that's that's right. Everything is in a story base and
through that paradigm, through that heuristic, he might use the
term what worldview accounts for the fact that humans experience
life as like a story itself, which is Jay's pointing to.
And obviously the naturalistic paradigm can't because the natural paradigm
has to include theology, even if it's false, as a
valid story.
Speaker 2: Right, right, So you think that because Dawkins talks a
lot about truth, but he's just talking about one type
of truth here, and he's sort of detached from Jordan
Peterson's type of narrative truth and the stories that we
that we tell ourselves. And there's a sort of relationship
between archetypes and memes as well, and this is why
Jordan Peterson attacks that part of Dawkins scholarship.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and more people on in that sort of like
academia higher thought philosophy nerds across you know, people who
typically are crossing their legs in their chairs. They are
all sort of admitting and coming over to the side
the Weinstein's that there's something very important about metaphorical truth,
and they're still looking at it through the lens of
it's like a technology, though, which.
Speaker 2: Is something about about the way that about the way
that our ancestors and the ancients used to communicate. Do
you think that we're maybe a little bit detached in
the sort of modern materialistic world from the way in
which they actually used to communicate when they when they
wrote stories, and do you think that this was just
a completely different way of of getting to truth rather
than the sort of scientific truth that we tend to
focus on these days.
Speaker 1: Yes, absolutely, I think that you can see that in
liturgy and the Orthodox Church. I mean, the means and
modes of communication of information and revelation and history there
are very foreign to the way that you know, modern
man thinks. I think that's a key example of a contrast.
Speaker 4: M Absolutely, we'll carry on with this.
Speaker 2: And it's interesting segueing into this because Dawkins starts to
say that Peterson sort of drunk on stories, so through.
Speaker 8: A story, or that the story is a description of
the structure through which we see the world. I think
that's accurate because we have to prioritize our perceptions.
Speaker 5: That's a tricky problem.
Speaker 6: While I would prioritize my perceptions like this, the fact
that I care about are the fact that are true
and have evidence going for them. And I'm not that
interested in symbols. I think Dr Peterson, you're drunk on symbols.
Speaker 5: Yes, you mentioned I've heard you. I've heard that comment.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yes, I mean, for example, I've I've I counted
up in your book We Who Wrestled with God a
number of references to Cain. There are three hundred and
fifty six references to Cain in the in the book,
and twenty references to the descendants of Cain. You're obsessed
with Kine because Cain is symbolic of evil. All the
evil in the world you more or less blame Cain for.
And this is Cain. I mean, you don't believe Caine
actually exists.
Speaker 5: I presume since I joined forces with the Daily I
think of Kane as well.
Speaker 6: Existed.
Speaker 8: I think the pattern that Cain represents is an eternal pattern.
It's a higher level of existence that's different. I realized
there are Kine types who exist.
Speaker 6: There are Cane types. Caine himself is a game of
way where you say in your book Cain and Abel
were the first humans to be born in the natural way.
Now that that betrays you as as as we're pretending
you think they really existed, because you wouldn't have said
they were born in a natural way unless you were
muddling up facts with symbols there, because you don't think
that that Cana Nabel existed.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't. What do I think about Cana and Nabel?
Speaker 8: I said, I think the pattern that they represent always exists,
always exists.
Speaker 6: A pattern that they represent, the conflict between brothers, the
rival and between brothers. This is a fundamental pattern which
which yes, it's something that that's there, But I care
about facts. Did they exist or did they not exist?
Speaker 8: Well, I can imagine this situation where when the story
was originated that it referred to two actual brothers. But
as the stories propagate across time, as they mutate, as
they adapt, let's say, to the structure of human memory,
they deepen and they become broader, and so then they
become emblematic not only of the pattern of conflict that
might characterize the original two brothers that the story was about,
but about the conflict between brothers as such, and then
the more fundamental levels of conflict that exist within human beings,
which is what you see in more sophisticated literature. It's like,
the Biblical accounts speak a fact in a factual manner
upon occasion, but the Biblical accounts also speak poetically and
metaphorically and allegorically, and people who are sophisticated in biblical
analysis have known this for centuries. Biblical literists generally suffer
from the problem that they don't even know what it
means to be literalists. There's lots of unsophisticated the ways
of approaching get text.
Speaker 6: Okay, let's see what the rest of things about But
I suppose I'm a literalist. I mean, and you give
the demo when you say cater Abel were the first
two was in a boil, in a natural way.
Speaker 5: Speaking allegorically, they're within the confines of the text.
Speaker 8: I mean what I meant by that was that the
way the story lays itself out is that Adam and
Eve are created by God, and so they're they're not
They're not they don't they're not emblematic of the pattern
of human beings that exist in fallen history. Within the
confines of the text. The first two people who are genuine,
who aren't creations of the divine, are canaanable, and so
for me, they're emblematic of the patterns of conflict that
rip people apart in the world of history, in the
world of normal history.
Speaker 6: Professor Dolkins, I know you take particular umbrage with that statement.
Speaker 1: Was sort of opposed to go for it, Jay, Yeah,
I mean I was actually surprised that when Peterson did
explain this part it was pretty much correct. I mean,
maybe would have changed the wording on a couple places there,
but I mean he did admit that. Okay, yeah, there
were at some point. I'm sure two brothers, But he
was trying to really stress the point that the story
becomes almost perennial and archetypal because it encapsulates as soon
as we have the fall, the very beginning of human
division and conflict embodied in these two characters. So I
thought his explanation to Dawkins, it seems that he's actually
trying to get Dawkins to understand that the real meaning
of this story is beyond just this question of was
there a guy named kan? Was there going to be
able to meaning? The story is supposed to resonate for
cultures and for you know, in this bigger metaphysical, archetypal way,
And he keeps trying to get Dawkins to understand that.
I think on the basis, as you said at the
beginning of the discussion, that they have on the base
of memes and archetypes, Peterson being a you know, union student,
and then trying to try to find an inroad there.
When I did my breakdown, I mentioned the four layers
of scripture. This is a traditional way that the texts
are interpreted. You have the literal, you have the allegorical,
you have the analogical, and you have the tropological I
won't list all of that, but the logical is the
moral sense. And Peterson sees the moral sense layer as
the mechanism of the doorway that he might reach or
watch people in general. And then maybe he thinks that
through that he can get them to other layers, like
understanding the allegories or whatever. But the problem is that, well,
we'll get to the problems later. I won't ramble all day,
but I thought he did a pretty good job here
of actually rebutting and stating what his point was. It's
just amazing that throughout the entire discussion, Dawkins doesn't actually
seem at all interested in understanding or caring about resonances
of archetypes and patterns and history tradition. He really just
wants to restate his sort of basic bitch empiricism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he was genuinely going to morph into Shania Twain
at one point. The amount that he said that doesn't
impress me much. Yeah, I was a pros frustrating. It
just seems like he keeps on straw maning Jordan Peterson's
position in a way. I mean, he he just wants
to know, do you actually think that these things happen
in history and sort of refuses to engage with it.
Speaker 4: So, yeah, Jim, but what have you on that pot?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've thought that Peterson's constantly pointing to the value.
He places a superior value to the meaning of interactions,
while Dawkins holds a position where the only real value
is explaining molecularly or through physics, what the what the
interaction between things are. In his view, it's ridiculous because
Canaan Abele, let's say, you granted actual from his he
just accepted there were actual people. From his view, this
conflict the meaning that Jordan Peterson's trying to convey what
it means to be, you know, post fall Man conflict,
dealing with good and evil, this kind of stuff your
what's your higher purpose? He's always concerned with that, which
I appreciate. Dawkins from his view, has to say all
of it's just an evolutionary mechanism unfolding, and what you
call conflict is merely molecules against molecules whose molecules win. Well,
that's absurd, of course, right, because it tells you no direction,
it tells you no ethical stance.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: Basically, it's just whatever happens, happens, force wins, brute force wins,
and uh I wish Peterson, in addition to his poetry,
would just push it back on Dawkins once, why ought
we just look at things as they are descriptively, as
opposed to deriving some meaning from it that's more important
to us? Richard Dawkins would say something like because I
believe in truth or whatever?
Speaker 1: And you say.
Speaker 3: Why, like why do you? Why do you believe in truth?
Why ought we pursue true descriptions of things? He won't
be able to answer this outside of reducing it to workability. Well,
then you can accomplish your ghos. Well, what if my
goal is to start, you know, start a religion that
denies the value of empiricism, you know, a net balance,
and pursue some other thing. He couldn't. He couldn't really
battle it back, right, He'd have to hiss at you, like,
you know, like jays impressed impression.
Speaker 4: The Kremlin, Dawkins impression.
Speaker 1: I might get one of those out of today's discussion.
We'll see.
Speaker 2: Was turned into some sort of like unearthly creature there, Jay.
Speaker 4: Before, thank you, thank you, guys.
Speaker 2: We got thirteen hundred people in the chat at the moment,
make sure to like the video and are you guys live?
Speaker 4: Are you both live?
Speaker 3: I am co streaming or whatever you call re streaming.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Cool.
Speaker 2: If you guys, if you want to read out some
some Bob chats at some point, and Jay, if you
want to read out some super chests, just let me know.
Speaker 9: Let's carry on cana Abel with the first normally born
human beings. But I think of underpor Pearson correctly, there
are things that can be sort of true within a story.
It's true that Sherlock Holmes lives at two to one
be Baker Street, And as far as I understand, that's
maybe what you mean by that. The truth in the
matter of cana Nabel being the first naturally born, it's
internal in.
Speaker 5: The context of the story.
Speaker 8: They're the first two spirits or patterns you could think of,
patterns of perception and action, Yes, that characterize human existence
in the fallen world, right, So they're emblematic of what
happens in history outside of the whatever is meant by
the pre existent paradise.
Speaker 9: At the same time, you must know, I know this
comes up at the time when somebody says, but the
pain enable really exists, and I know that you want
to say that the.
Speaker 5: Story, which is a silly question.
Speaker 8: I think it's like asking whether Raskolnikov existed in Crime
and Punishment, Like it's not It's not a trivial question
because you.
Speaker 5: Can answer yes, and you can answer no.
Speaker 8: You can say, well, there was no such specific person
as Raskolnikov, but you it's it's not a helpful question
because the reason that Darstyevsky's Crime and Punishment is a
masterpiece is because Raskolnikov was everywhere in Russia when Dostievsky
wrote Crime and Punishment.
Speaker 5: Raskolnikov is hyper real, not not real.
Speaker 9: To be clear, is that how you feel about Caine
enable that that that is to say, an identified hyper
real Homo sapiens called Cain's.
Speaker 5: In a sense, it's irrelevant to me.
Speaker 8: Even if they were real, Like we don't know anything
about them, even if they weren't weren't well, I said,
it could have been the case that when the story originated,
way back when it originated, that the first people that
were described by the first person who generated the seeds
of the Canaanable story were referring to actual people. It
doesn't matter, because the text has been compressed and modified
over a vast span of time, and it's created all
sorts of meanings that certainly weren't part and parcel of
whatever the original extort was.
Speaker 6: As a point, alex was certainly then the condines of
the story, and dost Asky was a great writer. What
makes you think the writers of Genesis were a great writer?
I mean, who were they? We don't we know nothing
about them?
Speaker 8: Well, well, I think they were great writers because I
think I understand the patterning of the stories and what
it points to. I think the idea, for example, that
canaan Able are emblematic of too opposed patterns of adaptation
to the world is brilliant. It's almost brilliant, beyond imagining,
especially because the story is so insanely compressed, and it's
certainly evident to me as a clinician that the patterns
that are portrayed in the story of Canaanabel played themselves
out in the real world continually.
Speaker 5: I'm terribly, terribly.
Speaker 6: You think the author of that story in Genesis was
a literary genius.
Speaker 8: I think that there's a spirit of literary genius at
work across millennia. Crafting that story so that it has
almost an infinite depth. How that relates to the original
author or sequential authors, I don't know, because it's lost
in the seeds of time.
Speaker 5: It's lost in that it's lost in history.
Speaker 6: So the story involved saying the story like, I mean, yes,
that's interesting if it evolved.
Speaker 8: To match the contours of the human memory. That's exactly
it is that these stories, that's part of their archetypal nature. Like,
so they have an emotional and motivational expression, but as
they propagated across time, they also evolve, so they're maximally memorable,
and they're maximuly memorable for a biological reason.
Speaker 6: Well, that's very interesting if they'd been ready to get
involved little bit time, if you couldn't if you could
actually trace successive manuscripts, and you can't do that.
Speaker 1: I mean, now I'd like to injector because this is
a really you know, funny point. I think about Dawkins,
because Dawkins isn't a textual scholar. He's in no position
to a judge anything about the biblical texts. We see
atheists do this all the time, which now you can
have atheists who do textual studies, but by the own
their own standards, because they're always requiring these sort of
you know, academic strictures about you know, who's qualified to
speak on these issues. Richard Dawkins isn't qualified to speak
on textual veracity, textual quality, et cetera. So it's odd
to me that he would go that line of pointing
out that you can't trace the manuscript. How does he
know you can't trace the manuscripts? And in fact, I
think at this point he meant he gets confused between
thinking what the sceptuagen is versus the the masoretic text.
But it was I think a mistake for Peterson to
equate canaan Able to Reskolnikov, because at once, I mean earlier,
he had admitted that, well, there probably were two brothers
at one point, which is the origin of the story.
But then he kind of went down this Protestant line
of reasoning that this story had gained all these accretions.
I don't know what that means. I mean, yeah, it's
true that the story maybe has evolved in other cultures
in other ways, but you know, I think it would
have been a lot better to just answer Dawkins again
and say, yeah, there probably were two brothers at some point,
but I'm talking about the archetypal meaning of this story,
and why are you in any position. By the way,
he's not a literary scholar either, so Dawkins is not
in a position to say that it's not a literary
genius story either.
Speaker 3: Also, I don't think it was a good good move
to play with Dawkins' worldview and throw him some branches
by saying evolve or this kind of stuff, because I
think it would be stronger to say, whether it's Canaan
able or other parables or other stories actual and metaphorical,
that those things that the meaning and the value of
those things as stories as lessons are in fact timeless.
They're the things that that maybe wouldn't evolve and would
still apply as true or meaningful today regardless of modernity.
That this is what's kind of funny about Dawkins is
he might say the truth is what comports to reality.
If it's the case that biblical stories, the Biblical narrative
describes the wholeness of the human reality, not just the
physical world, right, Because they always say, well does it
describe physics, and you go, well, no, we're talking about
the overall the holistic experience a human being has, in
this case as a man. Christianity points to describes and
prescribes the human experience and how to live basically, and
that's that's not just something that describes the bark of
a tree or molecules engaging. So what this always comes
up when someone says, show me x exists. It's almost
one hundred percent the case. Jay, you've probably run into
this more than me. When they say exist. From dawkins view,
they're really talking about something physical. Always almost always physical.
Speaker 1: It always assumes they're a materialist.
Speaker 3: Occurredim right, right, and Peterson's denying it. But this is
why it ends up being frustrating, because you've got to
get to the core. Like Jay said, it's paradigm versus paradigm.
It's not particular. Let's let me analyze the particular Canaanable
story from this view, and you look at it from
your naturalistic view. We have to look at the views
themselves as wholes and see if they actually make sense.
And Dawkin's view doesn't make sense. But but Jordan ever
pushes in that presupper style. Really he kind of flirts
with it, but just do it.
Speaker 2: What would be some of the key questions in these
exchanges that you think that Jordan Peterson would do well
to ask.
Speaker 3: I would ask something very simple. It's almost a cheap
shot at this point. I actually learned this from Jay.
I just ask him, is science or empiricism the best
way to truth? Just trap him. He will say yes impulsively. Well,
he might stall and say, well, it depends on what
you mean by truth. Okay, fine, However, he's going to
describe truth in his paradigm the statement empiricism or science
is the best way to truth. That statement, if it's
a truth, statement can't be justified or validated through the
scientific method or empiricism. So he's already outside of his
paradigm by stating it. That's a trap, but it does work.
I wish Peterson would get practice in more of these
direct drives to absurdity, you know, which are tactical and useful.
Even if they're annoying to hear all the time, they
really are useful because they trap the opponent.
Speaker 2: And it's interesting because later on in the debate, I
think that they do sort of have this exchange a
little bit where Dawkins is sort of saying, well, you know,
we can measure science right up until the millimeter, and
then these stories you can't really measure them. So I mean,
if he does say that in the best way to
truth is because you can measure science so accurately, then
what's the response to that.
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 3: Well, the fundamental distinction here, Jake is the statement science
is the best way to truth. You couldn't actually measure
truth in a beaker or anything. That's the point is
that he has to appeal to some metaphysics, some transcendental things,
things are immaterial that can't be captured as items in
the world. He's already using those things, so Peterson just
has to push him on. Well, you know, you reject
this whole category of things inside of theology, religion, Christianity,
and everything else, and yet in your own system you
appeal to an a ton of things that are not
material or physical. And so some of those things information knowledge,
meaning the laws of thought, the mind.
Speaker 1: He could never just as mathematical objects.
Speaker 3: The relations is also between these things. For instance, a
naturalist has to have the regularity of nature to then
describe these kind of lawlike behaviors between objects. But the
lawlike behaviors don't actually come from the objects, like you
know what I mean, Like you couldn't look at an
object and then show me where its behavior emerges as
physical things in itself, right, right, So they have to
grant themselves first there's regularity. They have to assume the
regularity in the future to then do induction, which is
the basically the foundation of their entire epistemology is is induction,
which from their own view they admit, is just basically probability, right,
it's the faith there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, interesting, this is why I enjoy having these conversations.
And if you guys aren't following Jay and Jim Bob,
head over to their channels because I've stolen more arguments
from you guys than I could possibly count, to be honest,
take them. So we're gonna read out a few super
chats here, guys. Benjamin for five Bucks says, love these
love conbos like this, because we got minds aiming at
governing dynamics, the stuff that actually matters.
Speaker 4: I can never read. Yeah, read so good?
Speaker 2: Since there, Hypocrite for five Bucks says, after all these years,
Jordan B. Peterson is still basically an atheist, that likes Christianity.
I don't get why he doesn't take the leap of
faith and accept Christ. Jay, what do you think about that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, who knows what the holdbacks or the
motives or the questions might be. You know, it could
be what you mentioned earlier, scientific you know, angle that
he has. It could be you know.
Speaker 3: I think it's a clause in his Daily Wire County.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know what, I think that it's actually
I've heard him say a few times that he thinks
that the idea that Christ is who he says he
is is absolutely terrifying. And I kind of do get
that as somebody who's pretty new to Christianity myself. It
is a pretty terrifying thought when you think about the
accountability that comes with it, and when you think about
the magnitude of what that claim actually means and what
actually means to get to the bottom of truth. So
I can kind of understand why it's terrifying also liberating
at the same time. But does that make sense?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's probably partab Yeah, absolutely, probably, that's probably
the rude of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So Benjamin for five bucks says, you guys are
way smarter than JP or Dawkins. Why are you watching this?
The artist formerly known as Clyde for ten Bucks says,
keep up the good workfellows. God bless to you and
everyone watching YouTube. Bro, since your hypocrite says the worst
part about jbp's allegorical viewers that he concedes ground to
atheists that they have the facts, even though it shouldn't
be granted at all.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well that's kind of what we're talking about a
little bit today.
Speaker 2: MKG says, Jay's Dawkins impression is hilarious.
Speaker 4: Absolutely it is.
Speaker 1: Thank you and again, if you're good, maybe by the
end of this you'll see it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, slow boy Whiteboard says, glad to see Jay and
Jim Jim bob on we need a battle of impersonations.
Speaker 1: I think we absolutely a debate between Oran Peter.
Speaker 3: We could just do our own debate just the band
in the review.
Speaker 2: There you go request in my mind right there, requesting, Okay,
we're gonna have to do it, Fallasa Jay, do you
want to be paid?
Speaker 4: Do you want to be Dolkins?
Speaker 1: And that's Peterson?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, okay, you started off with with a with
a with a point plays Kimbo.
Speaker 3: Well that's that that's the thing you just said it.
You know, you just said that the allegorical could very
well play a part in in in the in the
reality that that's unfolding and the archetypes that we're using.
You know, you need the allegory.
Speaker 6: Is that not?
Speaker 3: The might just confused here.
Speaker 7: But of course what I'm talking about is memes, mens, memories,
And I want to know is that such a thing
as a memory? Is it a real thing as a fact.
I only believe in facts. Memories are like memes because
they have ms. M and m's are the so well, Jordan,
because you seem to be drunk on them.
Speaker 3: Again, it the the mode at which you're interpreting facts
assumes some sort of teleological imperative. I'm not getting what
it is from your view.
Speaker 7: Well, I asked you about cleavage.
Speaker 3: May look, cleavage is as real as any as a
crab on the on the beach. The question is what
is the symbol of cleavage.
Speaker 7: I think we've all seen here that he doesn't believe
in facts. You see, he's living in fantasies. He lives
in Nania, he lives in the Lord of the Rings.
Speaker 3: Well, look, from your evolutionary view, this is the thing.
You're just gonna have to deal with Bucco from your
evolutionary view, even my Christian view, even if it's perverse
or or counterfeit is just a mimetic expression of biological
biological mechanisms. So on what account, from your view, is
one mechanism or one sort of epiphenomenal memetic system more
superior than another. It's like answer that cal He's not
answered the damn question.
Speaker 4: Uh, you just like the tokens gremlin is an.
Speaker 2: Oh fantastic All right, let's get back into the debate.
Speaker 6: And the one and what does what you mean when
you say tomorrow, Well, I would say you can see
that in the compilation of the biblical texts, because one
of the things that you see evolved.
Speaker 8: You know, you criticized the Biblical text at one point.
Correct me if I've got this wrong, because I don't
want to get this wrong. You said that there isn't
anything in the Biblical text that constitutes let's say, significant
original discovery, which is something that you'd expect if it
was a divine providence, let's say divine providence. And so,
and I think you know, I was thinking about that,
and I think that one of the discoveries that the
text lays bear in an insanely brilliant manner is that
the foundation of the community is sacrifice.
Speaker 5: That that's an appropriate conceptualization.
Speaker 8: And you can see the concept of sacrifice evolve across
the Biblical texts as their sequence chronologically in the what
in the overall story that makes up the Biblical the
Biblical text, the idea of sacrifice becomes more and more sophisticated,
it's more and more elaborated, it's more and more specified,
it's more and more embodied.
Speaker 5: There's an obvious progression in a way is.
Speaker 6: The progression where do you see that progression in successive
manuscript in.
Speaker 8: The successive stories as the story, as the text progresses, the.
Speaker 5: Way the way a novel progresses something like that sacrifice.
Speaker 8: Those were the entire the way for testing the text
is a sacrificial Is this artificial story as well?
Speaker 5: The Passion story is a story of sacrifice, and the.
Speaker 8: Sacrificial motif recurs continually through the Biblical text, and it's
elaborated constantly.
Speaker 9: Okay, So the criticism is the Bible as a text
gives us nothing to indicate that it has divine origin.
There's nothing that we can read in it where we
think there's no way this idea could have evolved were
it not divinely put into this text.
Speaker 6: That's a criticism in the past.
Speaker 8: But I think it's reflective of some of some order
that's so profound and implicit that there isn't a better
way of describing it than divine. But I don't really
care if we if we look at that from the
bottom up, like as a biological phenomenon, or is from
the top down, I don't think it makes any difference.
Speaker 6: It doesn't make a difference whether it was divinely in
the spot out or whether it's evolved within human.
Speaker 8: I don't think look if okay, so so let me
ask you this, Like, I think that at bottom truth
is unified, and what that's going to mean eventually is
that the world of value in the world of fact
coincide in some manner that we don't yet understand.
Speaker 5: And I think that the fact of that union.
Speaker 1: And when he.
Speaker 4: So, what's going on here, Njay, this is.
Speaker 1: The best part, when he's really about to cook and
could have really just moolish Dawkins, And this is to
really push on the point of the fact that in
an atheist materialist paradigm you can't really get aught from
is you can't get these moral norms which seem to
be necessary for you know, human survival, human society, for
justifying our moral claims. We need some way to ground
these things. But the problem is that if everything that's
that exists is just molecules in motion, there's nothing that
says that molecules in motion need to be some way
versus some other way. They just are. And to get
to an aught you need some basis or reason as
to why it needs to be this way or that way.
And that requires these sort of standards that have to
transcend the physical have to transcend the molecules themselves, because
there's nothing in the molecules that tell you value judgments.
And this is where Jordan's going, and he sets up
a question and the challenge perfectly. And then I think
this is the part where the village person cop guy
that's doing the looks like it looks like Amber the
George people.
Speaker 3: There, Yeah, totally.
Speaker 1: The guy like he deflects right away, so he's even
he senses that Peterson could really nail Dawkins, and he
will immediately deflect the way I think at this point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, So Alex O'Connor, do you think that. I mean,
I think that the reason why they would want to
have him here is because he's a guy who's very
experienced with talking to Christians. He's an atheist himself, but
he's not one of those really annoying sort of Dawkins
sort of clone atheists as far as I can tell anyway,
and he has quite good conversations with people like William
Lane Craig whenever I've sort of listened to those conversations
that he's had. So do you think that his ability
to sort of steal man the other side is why
he's the moderator?
Speaker 4: And is that an appropriate choice? I think?
Speaker 3: For I think step one is how big his account is,
how many eyes he has, And then second, yeah, he
can facilitate the conversation. But I remember this too, Jay,
he he does a little bit of damage control. Whether
it was impulse or you know, involuntary, who knows, but
he definitely has He did some sort of protecting throughout
this conversation once or twice.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't mean.
Speaker 3: To be rude.
Speaker 1: I've watched several of his debates. I think that he
fails miserably and most of them, I haven't seen all
of them, but when he debated Trent Horn, and I've
debated Trent Horne, I don't think Trent Horn's a great
of a debater. But I think Trent Horden mained made
the Alex O'Connor look silly, So don't I don't think
he's that. I'm a little mystified. I mean, maybe he
is very personable, but as debates go, I don't think
he's very good.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I watched your review of his debate with Ben Shapiro,
and you were able to pretty easily.
Speaker 4: Picked that one apart.
Speaker 2: But do you think that we could potentially if I
reach out and annoy Alex O'Connor enough, he might take
the debate with.
Speaker 1: You, Jay, You're welcome to do that. It's been attempted
in the past. I don't think it'll happen when I'm
always down for it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, I did see him do the William Lane
craig sort of. He sort of debated William Lane craig
for Dawkins. I don't know if you guys saw this,
but Dawkins had these sort of big objections about William
lane Craig's moral character because he supports what happened, he
supports what God did with the Canaanites, but he wouldn't
debate William Lane Craig is apparently William Lane Craig is
mean or something. And then Alex O'Connor went and actually
sort of did the debate for him, So there is
definitely a little bit of evasiveness going on.
Speaker 4: Do you think that do you guys? Do you guys?
Speaker 2: I mean, you guys obviously have a different sort of
view of Christianity than William Lane craig, But starting with you, Jay,
do you think that he's one of the better apologists
out there?
Speaker 1: I don't, honestly. I mean, I don't have anything personal
against him, but no, I don't think he's very good.
I think maybe back in the day he was okay.
I think that his sort of boomer style of things
is completely irrelevant to today's way of doing things. I
think the Muhammed a Job debate was was a big fail.
I think ultimately he came out on top, but that's
just because Muhammed a Jab was so bad. But no,
I think unfortunately, the William Lane Craig's whole position is
it's all very deficient.
Speaker 3: Did Jim Uh Yeah, I just I agree with Jay.
He did a he did a decent job annihilating the
moral landscape. Now that's fifteen years ago, I think.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I watched the other Dayeah.
Speaker 3: I think he did a good job there. But he
just wouldn't argue. He just doesn't argue in it in
a way that's that really gets, you know, to the
pillars of what's happening. Like we talked about paradigm verus paradigm,
a lot of these Christian debaters, the more popular ones,
are never doing a tag or preset up. They're never
arguing about the the meta argument itself. How is it
that we can even argue? They don't want to do that.
They grant the other view. So it's really just naturalists
arguing against naturalists, or maybe Jay you would say founds.
Speaker 1: Tag also requires within this element of going into the
other person's position and deconstructing it, which is a little aggressive.
And so if you're not aggressive as a kind of
a debater or a person in general. And so I
think a lot of these people in this domain, I'm
not naming everybody specifically, but a lot of people in
the debate domain. Unfortunately, they are popular kind of soy,
and so they're not going to be aggressive. They're not
going to want to go in and do that deconstructing stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Also, it's going to be easier to follow not
doing the tag, just to be honest, I mean, even
though I think it's more I think it's more appropriate
to just cut at the pillars of another worldview, but
exact Yeah, it's really like it's like a stalemate, and
so it's not entirely as watchable as them talking about
all these things. Once you grant regularity of nature, the
way the world is, all this stuff, then you could
talk about particular things, and like Jay said, it ends
up being facts against facts. Well, that doesn't give us
anything because we're actually wondering about which view is interpreting
the facts, not just the facts.
Speaker 1: So I think tag also requires pretty high level, sort
of grand universal connecting various domains, and not many people
are able to do that.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I actually heard William Lane Craig.
Speaker 2: I've listened to hours and hours and hours of his
debates and speeches and I really got a lot from it.
But I also heard him say that presupposition. Presuppositional apologetics
is like, is some sort of kind of what he said,
He made fun of it, and that was interesting. But
just quickly on this one though, guys, before we move
on about the question of whether the Biblical text did
divinely inspired or did they evolve? Yeah, starting with you, Jay,
I mean, how would you answer this question?
Speaker 1: Well, I do believe they're inspired, and I think that
there might be also included within that some possibility of
what we might call evolution. But the text quote evolving
could also mean that could also be classed under providence
and inspiration and guidance as well, So those two things
aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, depending upon what we mean. But
I don't believe that that necessitates what Peterson said about accretions.
You didn't really go into that, so I'm not sure
what he meant. That could mean something like the way
protest since think about you know, Catholic traditions or accretions,
and there was this primitive simple who knows what that means?
But no, I would just say, simply put, I believe
in the inspiration and the guidance the preservation of the texts.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, And I would just add to that that
it's important to distinguish when you when you hear someone
say evolve, they could very well mean over time, apprehend
a greater resolution of the meaning over time, and that's
totally compatible with Christianity, whether it's morality or some sort
of more detailed, granular hermeneutics. It's perfectly fine to examine
these things. And it's just important to ask someone what
they mean by evolve, because you just think change and
if it changes and it can't be true, well well
no you could. Actually you could gain again higher resolution,
more granular understanding of things, and if you want to
call that evolved, I just wouldn't use the term evolve, right.
Speaker 1: A loaded term?
Speaker 5: Yeah yeah, yeah yeah.
Speaker 2: Maybe you guys can help me to build this argument out,
But there's I think that this maybe sometimes they get it,
like the atheists particularly get confused between ontology and epistemology,
where like the ontology doesn't actually change, but the way
in which we come to know it that evolves over time.
So yeah, like we can we can come to learn it,
but the actual nature of it itself doesn't change. Does
that make sense?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, okay, all right.
Speaker 2: Let's move on fellows, I think we're going to shortly
get to the cultural Christian bit. Let's let's do the
cultural Christian part, because I thought this one is definitely
very interesting.
Speaker 4: Stuff from here.
Speaker 8: Impossible for creatures embodied like us to get a grip
on quantum phenomena, the strange wave particle duality, for example,
we have ample evidence that it works and stellarly.
Speaker 5: And I would say exactly the same thing about the
Biblical text if.
Speaker 8: They run into a mystery, like there's a horizon of
mystery which I do not claim to penetrate.
Speaker 5: But in so far as I've been able to understand
the text.
Speaker 8: Every time I make a improvement and understand and it
reveals something to me that's just quite shattery.
Speaker 6: Quartn physics is deeply mysterious, and you're saying that Biblical
texts are deeply mysterious. The difference is quantum physics. The
predictions would derived from quantum physics are fulfilled to the
humpteenth decimal places definal place. I mean, I think it
was Richard Finland's equivalent to predicting the width of North
America to the nearest hairs breadth. I'm that's impressive that
no doubt the mystery there as it were, gains its
credentials by its predictions. The mysteries of the Bible doesn't
have any credentials at all, as far as I can
make out.
Speaker 5: Well, I guess the credentials that I would put.
Speaker 8: You made a statement a couple of months ago that
I found very interesting, and I don't claim to understand it,
and I'm not trying to put you on the spot
with it. You said that you were a cultural Christian, okay,
And so that raised the number of questions in my mind,
you know.
Speaker 5: And the first question was you.
Speaker 6: Are changing the subject.
Speaker 5: No, no, not no, I don't think so. I may
be leaping outside of the.
Speaker 9: Topic of cultural Christianity, but I think I have less
of questions that you wanted to ask, and that is
one of them.
Speaker 8: I think professors referring to the predictive and to the
hutility stories.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 5: So that's actually what I was trying to say, if
I Okay, So that was the point.
Speaker 8: Well, it seemed to me that your proclamation that you
were a cultural Christian was a recognition and in a statement,
that you had found something in the culture that had
been derived from Christianity. That you had an affinity with
and that there's some reason for that. And one of
the things I wanted to ask you is, well, what
do you think that Christianity got right that allows you
to make a statement like that. I mean, I know,
I know that there's differences, perhaps in what we both
think about the ultimate veracity of the biblical stories. Maybe
there isn't differences like it would take a lot of
conversations figure this out.
Speaker 5: But but what did you mean by that?
Speaker 8: Like, what do you think that Christianity got right that
would enable you to make a statement like that?
Speaker 6: Actually, nothing I meant by that, no more than that
I'm brought up in a Christian culture. I went Christian schools.
I therefore no one way around the Bible. I mean,
one way around the Book of Common Prayer, I know,
the hymns. That's all. I don't value Christianity as a
truth system at all.
Speaker 8: Okay, So let me let me ask you about that,
because maybe that's true and perhaps it's not. So the
first question is, like, do you think that there are
any marked differences between cultural traditions that would enable you
to rank order them in terms of their ethical validity?
Speaker 4: Est?
Speaker 5: Okay, So for example, we could.
Speaker 8: Contrast mainstream UK Christianity with Islamic fundamentals.
Speaker 5: Okay, so there's a hierarchy, there is a hierarchy. Hierarchy
that points to what.
Speaker 6: Well, in the case of Islam, I dislike any religion
which punishes apostasy with death that throws gay people of
high buildings, that practices keep already dect to me that
that seems to me to place Islam on a lower
level than Christianity. But that's not to say anything very
positive about Christianity.
Speaker 8: Well it might, it might be to say something positive
about Christianity, Like I think that question is open because
you might ask yourself, what did Christianity get right that
led it away from those particular presumptions and towards something
that you regard is more ethically appropriate.
Speaker 5: Like this isn't a trivial question.
Speaker 6: It's a very modest claim, and it's not very much.
Speaker 3: I mean, can you stop. I just want to just
point in even Jordan, he's granting too much to Dawkins here,
because get it right from Dawkins's paradigm, and it sounds
like Peterson's using the same paradigm. Is accurate descriptions of
hard reality, external world, how things work, naturalism, this kind
of thing that's not what really Jordan is actually arguing
is the value of Christianity as far as getting it right.
Dawkins doesn't even have the capacity or the the category
folder to look at getting it right as some other
thing other than describing reality as some way, you know
what I mean, like a metaphoric getting it right, an
allegorical getting it right, summarizing the experience of being a
human being, with our highs and lows and our humility
and our pride and all these things. That's not the
kind of right quote that Dawkins is using in his standard.
But Jordan's asking it as if Dawkins is going to
answer outside of empiricism, he has to force him off
of empiricism. And that's the thing Jordan fails to do,
is there's plenty of traps you can set for the
audience listening if you're dealing with these types. There's tons
of traps you can set in moving an empiricist into
a corner where they have to then demonstrate that they
do have faith, they have faith in other things that
aren't empirically derived.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of some of those speaking of that atheist
faith in all kinds of magical marvel MCU things. It's
funny that Dawkins is a fan of quantum physics, which
supposedly gives as these wildly accurate measurements. Really look into
this domain. Most of that domain is highly, highly speculative.
I'm not saying it's all bunk, but a lot of
it is just well, it's a system that we're working
on that might come into fruition in five years, we'll
have these quantum computers. It's very speculative. It's not there's
not a lot to actually latch onto. I'm aware of
the you know, particle wave duality stuff and all that,
but it's it's just funny that what atheists will then
do is extrapolate these very really grandiose metaphysics out of that.
They'll say, oh, but then there's a multiverse, and I
remember Dawkins has had you know, he's had comments over
the years about the existence of the multiverse and all
the possibilities that are out there, which is just atheist metaphysics.
It's atheist magical thinking, where all, perhaps there's a universe
where I Richard Dawkins am the god of the universe,
and you know, one day I'll be able to unite
with my god universe out there. Sometimes it's just it's
just marvel for atheists basically. And he's also said, for example,
that he believes that it's very likely or more likely
that aliens are are real, and that aliens seated us here.
That's better than the Biblical explanation. So to me, this
is all just preposterous, outlandish stuff that has absolutely no
scientific basis. Yet the requirements for the Bible, he says,
our quote scientific based now on the basis of Jordan
Peterson's argumentation of like the psychological representations of patterns in
people's uh struggles with their relatives, he could argue that
the Canaanable story actually is scientifically replicable in some way
through his studies and his research into you know, familial
conflict or something like that. So so even even at
that level, he might Peterson might can make some argument
on that basis. But then I would also say that
when Dawkins made the argument that Islam on some scale
is worse than Christianity, excuse me, what scale? Did you
catch his answer? It was because it's bad, right, So
it's literally it's purely subjestion scales and value judgments are
in the domain of aesthetics and metaphysics. Well, excuse me,
that's not in the physical domains.
Speaker 2: So I mean, benjimb you mentioned before sort of pushing
them off of this horse. When Jordan Peterson is asking
him this question, well do you He's basically asking you,
do you think that there's a truth hierarchy? And do
you think that Christianity is higher up on that truth
hoarchy hierarchy? And then what do you think Christianity got right?
And Dawkins says, yes, Christianity is morally superior, it's higher
up on the truth hierarchy. Bet, it got nothing wrong.
So I mean where do you go from there? How
do you push them off the horse?
Speaker 3: Well, again, you just like Jay said, you go by
what metric? Right he has to say it's bad, or
you go, okay, how do you know something's bad? You
go after his epistemology. These people have to when in
their view, if they if they're going to be honest
and bite the bullet, they have to say none of
it's actually wrong. It's just a preference I have toward licorice,
black liquorice versus whatever. The weird kind they have now,
and so if you can reduce someone to that view, well,
unfortunately that applies to valuing truth. Why aren't we value
true just riptions of things, even if we took a
strictly empirical description of reality, parts moving in a certain way,
describing these particular things, why ought we pursue That is
the question Dawkins can't answer, and Peterson knows he can't answer.
He just hasn't stated the question very simply right. He's
just it's almost like his poetry in his mind work
against him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Jay, have you had anything to add about that?
Speaker 1: No, I totally agree. I mean, you know, this has
always kind of presented to the atheist in this way.
But I mean, I just thought this was such a
low tier response on the part of Dawkins. I mean,
I don't have high expectations. I've listened to a lot
of Richard Dawkins debates, We've covered them over the years.
But for him to just basically resort to just this,
why I don't like it. You know, this is just
this is just so low tier for what is obviously,
you know, a question penetrating and probing about some kind
of justification for these standards. But I like to disappoint.
I like to go to things like, well, look, let's
say I'm Michael Fastbender in the movie The Killer, the
recent of David Fincher movie where he's he's just a
cold calculated assassin. Let's say I'm that kind of a person.
We certainly admit that there are these kinds of people
out there, just you know, morally free from any compunction hitmen?
What stops me, as that kind of a dude from
from just saying well, I don't like you or anything else?
There's nothing wrong with that. It's pure, you know, mechanistic,
just I'm just a machine. But if i'm there's nothing
wrong with that, because that's actually just a function of
nature and evolution. And so in fact, maybe that's even
the best position. Maybe we should all be like my
Michael Passman or assassins and we should just have no
compunction at all. Wouldn't that make me the fittest person?
But of course they don't ever want to say that
because they also want to morally pontificate that Christians are
bad or whatever.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, cool, Well read out a few quick
super chats here, guys. So he seems I'm gonna say
that stim Simms says j BP could also hammer down
on their moral assumptions and how they account for them.
They always dodge the questions. Dawkins did it here and
Sam Harris did the same thing.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what we're covering right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, MKGF. Tim Bucks says that was the best two
minutes ever. And I think you're referring to the debate
that we had. MKG again, says Jay. Can you please
explain to us what quantum understanding is also, if there's time,
quantum philosophy.
Speaker 4: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you need to understand the quantum zone, and to
understand the quantum zone, you must understand quantum consciousness. And
to understand quantum consciousness, you must first understand quantum time,
which relates back to quantum cooming. And to understand quantum cooming,
you must be born of a quantum paternity, and that
requires some form of quantum queer theory. So that's the process.
Speaker 3: That book coming out. I dare you to write the
parody book of that.
Speaker 4: Jay.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: When we just like livestream, we were laughing about how
they kept coming back to quantum stuff.
Speaker 3: Well, they say, foam too, right. That's like the ultimate
start point is the filming, which is kind of funny.
We make fun of them out there that their mind
is just fizzing right, and they go all the beginning
of all The necessary pre condition of all things is
quantum foam.
Speaker 2: Montana Mosa for five bucks says, a great meeting of
minds to discuss a really weird meeting of the minds
between a gnostic and an atheist.
Speaker 4: Great stuff. Keep on keeping on gim.
Speaker 2: All right, So back to this screen now, let's continue
with this.
Speaker 6: They're not really a very virtuous achievement. I don't know.
Speaker 8: I don't know if that's true, because if you look
at the barbarism that characterizes to the human past, you
might think that any progression whatsoever towards something a proximating
mercy and tolerance is nothing short of a bloody miracle.
People are pretty pretty ruthless, and so are our chimpanzee cousins.
Speaker 6: Yes, they are right.
Speaker 8: So we move forward into the light with great difficulty,
and the fact that we can take that for granted now,
and that it seems self evident in deserving of faint praise,
it's not so clear to me that that that's a
reasonable proposition.
Speaker 6: Okay, let's grant the faint praise, but that has nothing
to do with the truth value. And what I care
about is the truth value. I see no truth value
in the claims of Christianity. The virgin birth, the resurrection,
the miracles. Do you believe in any of those? Do
you believe Jesus was born in virgin.
Speaker 8: As I said before, there are elements of the text
that I don't feel qualified to comment on. My experience
has being that the mora like I know from a
metaphorical perspective and from a mythic perspective what the story
of the virgin birth means.
Speaker 5: And I accept that.
Speaker 8: I know, for example, that any culture that doesn't hold
the image of the woman and infant sacred dies Jim
and I don't know how that needs to be.
Speaker 5: Expressed in a form.
Speaker 6: Do you mean that you don't know?
Speaker 8: Let me ask you about that, because truth this is
something I talked with Sam Harris about too.
Speaker 5: Truth, as we know, is a tricky business.
Speaker 8: Do you think there are differences in the truth claims
between different writers of fiction, like it's Dostievsky more profound.
Speaker 6: Then well, I wouldn't call fiction truth claims anyway.
Speaker 5: I mean, then on what grounds do we rank order
the fiction in terms of quality?
Speaker 8: Like Dostievski is a profound purveyor of fiction on the
philosophical front, unbelievably deep and profound.
Speaker 5: There's something true about what he's writing about.
Speaker 6: It's nothing to do with the truth. The truth that
science is concerned with. The truth of science is the
truth that gets us to the moon. I mean that
this has nothing to do with whether one writer of
fiction has a sort of insight into human nature that
goes without saying accept that.
Speaker 8: So how do we deal with the notion that on
the on the purely factual side, how do we deal
with the idea Let's take the note you talked about clitaroidactomy.
Speaker 5: Let's talk about the oppression of women.
Speaker 8: Yes, we make a scientific case that that's inappropriate, or
is it a case that we're making on some other grounds?
Like I see in the Judeo Christian tradition, one of
the earliest pronouncements is that both men and women carry
the image of both.
Speaker 5: And that's such a certain tone to everything remarkable.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's pressing him here. I wish he'd let
him answer here, because you know, Dawkins famously is prod pop, right,
so he actually believes in most of the Malthusian ideas,
and UH is an advocate for deep pop and so,
but I'm supposed to believe that he cares about women's
oppression and that they're having their cotoruses removed. I mean
that to me, that's just so preposterous.
Speaker 7: That I want them to be less people, but I
want them all kids to be around.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So yeah, so if God, if the Canaanite story
was around deep pop and it was just a population problem,
they'd just be like oh yeah, like.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: It seems as though he basically is just completely denying
metaphysical truth here.
Speaker 4: I mean, am I am I wrong in studying that?
Speaker 1: It seems like it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely yeah, because he said something he said, well,
I'm concerned with uh. Scientific truth is tru to stick
at us to the moon and you. And the thing
that Jordan's pointing to in a very roundabout way is
just saying, like, know that the functionality the engineering that
you can point to in the world doesn't encapsulate why
we ought to pursue the engineering towards some goal. It
doesn't tell us that part, and Peterson's having a He
needs to simplify with Dawkins and say, where in the
process of science and engineering do you get the value
of using it?
Speaker 1: Is it very simple way, Jimbob In the past you
pointed out like if lies can help me get to
my goal, then I should lie.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yep, that's what they have to He has to
admit that that's a really sharp way of doing it,
just like I learned that myself, just going why ought
we not lie if it produces X value? Arbitrary value?
They can't they go silent every time.
Speaker 4: Yeah, No, it is very interesting.
Speaker 2: I would like to see Jordan Pterison do that a
little bit more, because Dolkins he says that, well, there's
no he says there's a hierarchy, and then he says
that there is sort of no metaphysical truth and we
can't rank order it, but we can rank order it.
Then I'm gonna grant myself some sort of a moral
high horse by saying that, Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 4: It's it's really is all over the place.
Speaker 2: When you stop and just think about it and break
it down a little bit, all right, carry on.
Speaker 8: It's radical age that both men and women are carry
the carry the image of God and to be treated
as something with intrinsic value outside of the domain of
power and politics. And it isn't obvious to me, It
isn't obvious to me, having thought about this a lot,
how we deal with that in the pure realm of fact,
Because one of the facts is if I can oppress you,
why the hell shouldn't I?
Speaker 6: And my job is to keep things on track here.
Speaker 9: I think there are a number of questions quite directly, yeah,
that we still haven't really heard an answer.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, that's asking about the verge of.
Speaker 3: Was that the save?
Speaker 6: Jay?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 3: That was the save?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's yeah, that was a save.
Speaker 2: So why do you think that that deflection happened there?
Speaker 4: Jerk?
Speaker 2: And because Alex could sort of sense that there was
a bit of a press upcoming.
Speaker 1: I think he's probably heard the objection from the moral
side many many times. If I recall, this was the
Trent O'Connor debate, and Trent really nailed him on this point,
and I think this is precisely where he completely collapsed
in that debate. So he probably senses that this is
going to be a tough area.
Speaker 3: That would be like also meta meta ethics. Once you
go through that door, it's it's you're on You're on
it basically here in that room. And so I think
he might also just to be try to be charitable.
He might also know that if he lets that path happen,
it's it might just open a can of worms and
install the show or.
Speaker 4: Something like this.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I think he's defined. I think he defended though.
I think he that was a defense move.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So you guys can see Jim Bubbs and Jay's channels
and Jim Bob's got his link to bub Chats in
the in the comments as well, if you guys want
to check that as well. Support the support these guys channels. Yeah, yeah, No,
it is a little bit frustrating there. And just quickly, Jay,
where how exactly do you think Trent Horn dismantled him
on this on this particular point.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to remember. This has been some years, but
I think at that time O'Connor was a vegan and
he was trying to defend vegan ethics within an atheist paradigm,
and I think Trent was nailing him on just again
the need for you know, justifying these moral claims in
an atheist paradigm, especially if you think that you know,
there's there's animal ethics or whatever's that's what I remember,
but it's been many years since I've listened to it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, all right, cool.
Speaker 2: So the next bit they're going to go into is
when Dawkins tries to sort of nail down Peterson on
the virgin birth, Well, do you actually believe it happened?
And I think that this is a bit of a
confusing part, but we'll get into it.
Speaker 9: Thinking about myth, I think anybody listening to this conversation
will understand that maybe a society that doesn't believe in
the virgin birth won't work. Maybe that's the predictive how
are they we're talking about? But I think you must
understand that when Professor Dowlkins is asking you do you
believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? He means
something like a biological fact. And by the way, it's saying,
I don't know what was saying. You know, I'm not
qualified to comment. He's an answer to that question, but
it is not your answer that you that you don't know.
Speaker 8: I said earlier, and I would hold to this, is
that there are elements of the text that I don't
know how to that I'm incapable of fully accounting for.
I can't account for for what the what the fundamental
reality and significance of the notion of the resurrection is
my my knowledgist ends, sure, but I know that whatever happened,
whatever happened as a consequence of the origination and the
promotion of the Christian story was powerful enough to bring
Rome to its knees and demolish the pagan enterprise.
Speaker 5: So there's some power in that story that's remarked christ.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well, the virgin births results from a mistranslation of Isaiah.
You know that.
Speaker 8: I'm like these sorts of questions, it's what would you say?
They don't They don't strike me as they're not getting
to the point. Well, look, I understand that there's there's
perfect reasons to debate this. I I know that, and
I know that your question is more than valid. But
it's beside the issue as far as I'm concerned. And
it's partly because, well, when we started this conversation, I said,
for example, that it appears to be the case that
a description of the structure through which we see the
world is a story. We see the world through a story,
and so that's a remarkable thing. That's a remarkable discovery.
And it's emerged probably in the last sixteen years, sixty
years in multiple disciplines, because we have to prioritize our facts,
and so we prioritize them according to a particular pattern.
And there are patterns that seem to work and to
propagate themselves properly and orient cultures towards life abundant.
Speaker 5: And there are other patterns, the pattern.
Speaker 8: Of Kine, for example, that lead to absolute, bloody devastation.
And I don't know exactly how to construe that sort
of truth, But we talked about the oppression of women
for examples, like how do you make a case on
purely factual grounds that women should be treated as equals.
Speaker 6: It's a moral question, and I know that's exactly why
I was leaping with a fatal question, which is did
Jesus have a father for the one bouncer.
Speaker 8: Father and a heavenly father like almost all mythological heroes.
Speaker 6: Of a virgin then, so you know you're saying that
James was not born of a virgin.
Speaker 3: Okay, here we have enough here What's funny about the
whole pres up is that Dawkins, by asking the question,
he's asking from his paradigm, and he's presupposing naturalism. And
so if Jordan responds stuck in the naturalist view, he's
going to sound ridiculous saying yes, I believe in the
virgin birth, because he's comparing it to a natural account
of what we know of what birth means in the
natural sense. It's a category error. So Peterson could simply
say yes, I believe that, and for you to cross
examine it from your naturalistic point of view is just
a category error.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: We're talking about two fundamental different areas of truth claims here,
and so you know that's that's dawkins trick. Is Oh,
I want to get him to say birth is possible
without six yes from a Christian paradigm in that in
that in that sense, absolutely just bite the bullet. Now,
why Peterson doesn't bite the bullet. I think it's fair
to say, in some cases I do it myself. I'm
not well versed enough to answer that biblical biblically.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't, I can't do it. That's different than saying
yes from the Christian paradigm. I believe that not only
virgin birth is possible and completely coherent within that system,
but all other miracles are as well. And if you
measure those against the naturalistic paradigm what we know of
the laws of physics, it won't work out. But that's
not our problem. That's your problem as a physicalist, right,
And so Peterson's on defense. Unfortunately he needs to be
on offense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. I think this was really the weakest point
where you know, he did ask some good questions to Dawkins,
but Dawkins turned it back and said, but but I'm
asking you about the virgin birth, and I would add
that again, he is incorrect when he says it's a
mistranslation of the text. Both the masoretic texts in the
Hebrew and the subtuagent in the Greek say therefore, the
Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, he will bear Embar's son, he shall call
his name Emmanuel. I mean both of the texts. So
it's not a translation issue, it's an interpretation issue to
where you know, most for example, Jews do not believe
that that's a Mesianic prophecy Christians do. That's an interpretation issue,
it's not a translation issue. So he doesn't know what
he's talking about. But I think this was a really
weak point where Peterson really should have But then again,
you know, I guess he's being honest because he actually
doesn't believe in the worldview, and he sees it really
as just something that is useful in a mythological sense
for societies and civilizations to have stories that give them
meaning and purpose. So it's all purely like for Peterson,
all of these things are purely this world. They're only
this this plane. There's nothing that ever ties it. And
he and he admits that when he says, I don't
understand the resurrection, because in the Christian story, the resurrection
is the purpose of the deification of all creation. So
that is all the messages the resurrection. That's the key point.
And it's very ironic that Peterson admits, I don't understand
the resurrection. Well, that's the purpose, that's all purpose of
all of it. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And also just to point out, he could just use
his ignorant or naive position right here and still use
it against Dawkins. And here's how if he just grants fine.
Virgin birth sounds absurd right from this view, the question
of are women equal to men? And why ought men
not just use power over women or something like this.
He's forcing Dawkins to also believe in some sort of
myth or something he doesn't actually believe is true in reality,
because the truth of reality is brute force in the
natural worldview. And so Peterson was actually smart to specifically
use the inequality of women and men that's often used
from the atheist view to critique Christianity, which has a hierarchy.
They have to admit believing in things like rights, believing
in equality. These are all mythical under their own view.
They're inconsistent with nature, they're inconsistent with induction and things,
And so he's still trapped. Even if Jordan had had
problems biting the bullet on the virgin birth or whatever
other examples, he can still use it against Dawkins, but
he just isn't trained to, or he just doesn't. I don't,
I don't know what it is. At three thirty, I
have to leave you. I can come back on if
you still are doing it at like four thirty, but
I gotta.
Speaker 2: I think we'll probably go for about another another half
an hour or so. Man, So yeah, we'll just maybe
play one more clip and uh, and then we'll let
you leave.
Speaker 4: Bro.
Speaker 6: By the way, ultimate not a value fact that there's
the universe where virgins do conceive.
Speaker 3: That's right, that's right. Yeah, there's a universal he can
be the Dawkins God, but not one where there's a
virgin earth.
Speaker 2: Got it.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's interesting though, because if Peterson is does consider himself
a Christian, he does believe that Jesus is God's only
begotten son, then I don't really see what's too problematic
with him sort of stepping into that and like leaning
into a little bit and being like, yeah, I mean
I do think that that's true. But then it sort
of raises the question of if Peterson is actually a Christian.
Do do you guys think that he is actually he
actually believes that Jesus is God's begotten son and he
believes these things, or do you think that he's evasive
because he actually doesn't know if he believes those things.
Speaker 1: No, I think he really doesn't know if he believes
it yet, and he's pretty you know, consistent. I mean,
I think he leans towards it, but you have to
believe that in the orthodox sense. You know, you can't
you can't like make up what that means for you
or something like that, or in some psychological mythological meaning.
It has to be in the sense of the second
person of the God had becoming incarnate, dying, you know,
descending it the eighties, resurrecting and ascending, and that's for us,
that's really the only only sense in which it believed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he kind of uses it as a Swiss army
knife of sorts, because even his argument that societies collapse,
there is a truth, a cyclical truth across time where
people start they get to modernity and prosperity, and then
they they take for granted things and then they start
denying universal things and customs and norms, and it all
sort of becomes this gray sludge and it falls apart.
We can see that across time. But Peterson's argument that
if you don't acknowledge or believe even the falsity, the
potential falsity of virgin birth, any culture says that denies
it can't function. This is a tech This is a
technology perspective which holding a Christian view, you wouldn't use
Christianity as a technology to keep the outcomes of the
world at their peak. Preference points right, This is a
weird way to argue for Christianity. Christianity in its practice
might produce out comes you prefer, but it also might not.
And so what Jay's pointing too is there's a higher
calling to what it is to be Christian in your
in your activity, in your attendance, in the way you are,
in what you produce, your fruits, et cetera. But Peterson's
looking at it like a necessary mechanism for a functioning society,
which is a It can be an okay argument, it's
just not the argument for why it would be true
or why you ought to pursue it. It can't be
linked to some sort of like it's the He kind
of sees it as like the training wheels on a
bicycle or something. He's like, all the bikes that abandoned
the Christian training wheels fell over. It's like, and I
hate unicycles. They're abhorrent. It's it's like, that's we get
what he's saying. But it also is why he's so
popular is because this sort of middle ground. I would
say lukewarm Christians love that approach. I mean it's so accessible.
I even went through a phase early on before I
found orth doxy is. I did see the value that
I was like, oh, you can grab that thing and
it kind of works and you have it as like
a little sword you can use. But ultimately it fails,
and it's failing with Peterson.
Speaker 2: So so Jimbob, if you got a hot out at three,
it is yeah, five more minutes, yeah, would I just
want to actually go through one more bit here about
the bronze serpent that you do.
Speaker 4: Spose we'll just skip a little bit.
Speaker 6: That's how old the universe is, how old the world is,
the history of life, the engineering achievements of landing a
spacecraft on a comet, these are the things that science
can do. And as I said, the predictions of quantum theory.
To come back to that, the predictions of the countum
theory which are verified to a sufficient number of vesting
places that it's equivalent to predicting the North America to
one has. But now that is, however difficult quantum theory
is to understand. That is what you can get from
quantum theory. Now, the mysteries of the Bible. If they
are miss Trees aren't doing the same league. I mean,
they just don't cut it.
Speaker 8: Attention, man who still believe in the American the scientific
enterprise itself. You appear to agree with Alex that there
might be presumptions axioms that need to be accepted. I
don't want to put words in your mouth because I
want to get this right before the scientific enterprise can
beget So I've tried to think those truths. Let me
lay out a couple of them. This is partly what
I've done while trying to make the case, for example,
that you're more of a Christian and you.
Speaker 5: Think you are so.
Speaker 8: For example, I think that scientific enterprise is motivated by
the axiomatic presumption that truth tends towards a unity.
Speaker 5: I think that it's predicated on the.
Speaker 8: Notion that there is a logical order that's intrinsic to
the cosmos, that that fundamental order is good, that it's
intelligible to human beings, and that discovering that order and
aligning ourselves with it makes for life more abundant. I
think that the scientific enterprise is also predicated on.
Speaker 5: The idea that the truth will set you free.
Speaker 8: And I think all of those axioms are religious and
derived from the Judaeo Christian tradition.
Speaker 5: And if you don't believe that, you have to account
for why.
Speaker 8: Science emerged in Europe and nowhere else in the entire
history of humanity, for example, and why it's also why
it's under assault from like all quarters now as that
underlying metaphysic disappears. Like you haven't had to be concerned
with the mythological substrate in your lifetime in some sense,
because it was intact and so the universities could flourish,
and you had your freedom, remarkable freedom to pursue your
scientific enterprise wherever you wanted it.
Speaker 5: People lauded you for it.
Speaker 8: Like that time is that time is threatened, and seriously so.
And I think it's partly because these metaphysical assumptions have
now become questionable, and that's part of the reason that
I'm attending to them. It's not because I don't admire
the accuracy of quantum prediction, for example, or celebrate what
Musk is doing with his capability of sending rockets to
the Mars. It's like more power to the technological enterprise.
But you know what's happening in the universities. It's awful
and that.
Speaker 2: All right, So just before we do this, Jimbob, do
you maybe want to sign out and let everyone know
where they can find you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'll just touch on that part really quick. Is
that again Dawkins is making category or he might as
well say, well, what's the purpose of using a calculator
if we have a thermomeata. It's like they are two
different things that provide two different values. Let's say, so
he keeps comparing biblical analysis or what we derive as
a value from a biblical narrative. He keeps equating that
with like engineering or something. Right, But again he's trapping himself.
I wish someone other than Peterson could sit in the seat,
because all you have to do from this perspective is say, okay,
so you derive your value from just arbitrary use, so
arbitrary goals. As long as I could use X belief
for a goal, then it's valid. Right, Okay, we've established
the goal from Christianity, even if it was false. It
provides the same level of utility. It meets your standard
for utility. And it's like, that's why it's so confusing.
He's like, I believe I want values in truths, and you're, well,
we have a system that gives you why you ought
to pursue truth descriptively and from the perspective of truth
being a person, Dawkins doesn't have an answer. I wish
Peterson would just keep drilling them. Why should we pursue
the lie of say equality? Why should we There's no
equality in nature? What are you talking about? Why should
we pursue it? From this enlightenment approach, he won't be
able to defend himself.
Speaker 2: So anyway, that's an interesting point when you talk about
utility and outcomes and the fact that Christianity actually does
provide that, and so within Dawkins's own paradigm, within his
own worldview, he should be sort of completely in favor
of Christianity, but decides to rail against it. But anyway,
Jim Bob, let everyone know where they can find you.
Speaker 3: Thank you for tuning in, Thanks for having me on.
Always good to be on with Jay and Jake. Made
by Jimbob is my channel. Made by Jimbob is my
Instagram and I stream every day over at my channel
usually Monday through Friday. And thanks for everybody showed up
in the chat on all of our channels, and I'll
see you guys next week and whenever the next little
meetup is see you guys. Have a good day.
Speaker 2: You guys all right, take care, Jim, Bob, good to
see a.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so Jay.
Speaker 2: This part is really interesting because there was an interview
that Piers Morgan did with Richard Dawkins, I think maybe
earlier in the year or something, where Richard Dawkins was
going off about wokeness. And Richard Dawkins has written all
these articles about postmodernism and how it's so anti science, etc.
But I don't think he's able to or maybe he
just doesn't accept the fact that he's actually sort of
a part of the problem.
Speaker 4: Would you agree with that?
Speaker 1: Yeah? In fact, in My Life tream I made that
very point. I pointed out that he's indirectly, you could say,
sort of one of the high priests of this whole phenomenon,
because he might not have been tended these consequences. But
if he's the face for many years, as he is,
of sort of you know, we'd just monkeys, We're just
a little more advanced apes. You know, there's not really
any basis for any of these higher transcendent values that
we're talking about in reality, these metaphysical principles and truths.
Then anything goes there's really nothing but as we said earlier,
subjective preferences. So what's the what's wrong with me, you know,
become becoming a woman, what's wrong supposedly or whatever? Like,
none of those things are actually wrong. They might not
be your taste, but again there's nothing objectively inherently morally
wrong with it. And I think that he has to
be consistent and bite the bullet there if he wants to,
you know, continue with the position that he has. But again,
like like Jimba was saying, well, he doesn't even actually
have to be consistent. There's nothing morally guiding us or
impelling us to even be consistent in our world, these
our positions. So I think it's ultimately an incoherent, just
just a unjustifiable position, the radical skeptical atheist position, very inconsistent,
a lot of double standards. And I like this part
right here because this is right when Peterson pointed out
that the preconditions of the scientific enterprise and the ones
that he listed, that's very similar to what you heard
me say at the beginning of the show, which is
about pre subpositions. I use this terminology all the time
at preconditions. This is this whole idea of what are
the assumed things that are not physical, they're not material,
that we utilize to do, even things like science. And
Peterson is correctly pointing out that ultimately that points you
to the transcendent into the divine.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we've got a super chat here from Frank,
says his sum cat.
Speaker 4: Thanks Frank, I appreciate that.
Speaker 2: We'll probably go one more segment here, guys, and then
check your super chats in if you have anything to
say to myself for Jay, and we'll read them out
and then I'll let j be on his way because
he's had a flu all week.
Speaker 4: I feel bad keeping him.
Speaker 5: That's not a scientific.
Speaker 6: Problem, it's I agree about that. I think it's an
interesting question why science emerged in Europe. I mean, and
I'm not enough of historian to know it is even
possible that Christianity did have something to do with that,
and I wouldn't categorically deny that, but that doesn't in
any way increase my trust in the validity of Christian
propositions like the resurrection of the Virgin vers and miracles,
and Jesus is the Son of God, and Christianity may
have had some kind of historical facilitating effect that led
to the Renaissance, that led to the scientific revolution, and
that will be a very interesting historical analysis, but it
doesn't bear upon the truth of the propositions of the
Christian religion.
Speaker 5: Okay, let's concentrate on the resurrection for a moment now. Unfortunately,
see this is part of the problem.
Speaker 8: Part of the problem with discussions like this is that
the mode of approach that's taken by the mythological tends
to circle and wander like it doesn't because you have
to shine light on the problem from multiple perspectives.
Speaker 5: That's why it's often encoded in it for example, or
in drama.
Speaker 8: It's not the same tack as a purely propositional in
logical argument, so it's more difficult to make. But let
me tell you a story that I believe bears on
the resurrection. You tell me what you think about it,
because I don't. This is a very difficult story to
account for. It's going to take me about five minutes
because it's complicated, but there's no way around it.
Speaker 5: I don't think.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 5: There's a strange scene in the.
Speaker 8: Gospels where Christ tells his followers that unless he's lifted
up like the bronze serpent, and there can be no
hope for the redemption of mankind unless he's lifted up
like the bronze serpent in the desert. Okay, this is
a very strange thing for someone to say. So you
need to know what the story of the bronze serpent
in the desert was and what it signifies.
Speaker 5: And I think we can understand it psychologically.
Speaker 8: I really do believe this, and so and the concordance
of that story, which was generated in Lenny of before
with christ utterance is something I just cannot imagine how
anyone put those two things together, especially given the lack
of explicit understanding about the relationship. So let me detail it. So,
there's a scene in Exodus in the Exodus story where
the Israelites are doing their usual fractious foolishness and whining
about the fact that they're lost, and bemoaning the law
of their privileges under the Pharaoh, and complaining about the
power dynamics of their leadership, and just generally being followers
of Cain, let's say, and God, the cruel God that
you refer to, decides to send among his suffering subjects
poisonous snakes to bite them, which seems a little over
the pap you might say. But in response to that,
I would say, there's no situation so terrible that some
damn fool can't make it infinitely worse.
Speaker 5: And so that's what happens to the Israelites.
Speaker 8: So they're being bitten by these poisonous snakes, and the
leaders of the people who've wandered from God go to
Moses and they say, look, we know you've got a
pipeline to God, and you know there's a lot of snakes,
and they're doing a lot of biting, and maybe you
could just ask him to, you know, call off the serpents.
And so Moses, who's not very happy with the Israelites,
either decides that he'll go talk to God. And God
says something very strange. He doesn't say, to hell with
the Israelites. More snakes is what they need. And he
doesn't say, well, I produce the snakes so I'll get
rid of them. He says something very very peculiar. He says,
have the Israelites gathered together all their bronze and make
a giant snake and put a serpent on it, a
bronze serpent, which is the symbol of heeling. By the way,
that even the Greeks use that symbol of Asclepias. It's
a very old symbol, very widespread, I'm still used by
physicians today. And then he says, put it up where
the Israelites can see it, and if they go look
at it, then the serpent's poison won't harm them. And
I read that and I thought, that's exactly what psychotherapists
discovered as they all converged in the twentieth century on
the utility of exposure therapy as curative. And that's the pharmicon.
A little of the poison that hurts you cures you.
It's the same principle that's used for vaccines, by the way.
So what we saw in psychotherapy is that if you
get people to voluntarily confront the things that are poisoning them,
so to speak, that hurt their life, that frighten them,
and discuss them, they become braver and more well adapted.
It isn't that they become less afraid, because that's been
very carefully tested.
Speaker 5: It's that they.
Speaker 8: Learn by watching themselves expose themselves to the things that
they once fleed from, that there's more to them than
they think, and that that generalizes across situations. And it's
the same mechanism that underlies learning as such, because children,
when they learn, put themselves on the edge of ragged disaster,
and that where they advance. And so what God tells
the Israelites essentially in this dramatic endeavor is that it's
better for them to face the terrors that confront them
than to than to be shielded from the terrors or
for them to hide from them. That they'll be better
people if they face what's right in front of them,
even if it's poisonous. And so it's like, okay, that's
pretty damn interesting and quite remarkable. And then that symbol
is used, for example, by the Greeks to symbolize medicine
as such. But then there's this additional weird twist which
is Christ identifies with that bronze serpent. You think, okay,
that's a very peculiar thing for anyone to do. What
is exactly what exactly does that mean? Well, so then
you might say, well, what's the most poisonous thing that
you could possibly face? You if you dramatize the idea
of poison itself, if you wanted people to face what
was worse so that they could become strongest. And the
answer to that is the most unjust, possible, painful death
and the ultimate confrontation with malevolence. And that's what's dramatized
in the Passion story. Now does that redeem everyone?
Speaker 4: Maybe? Maybe?
Speaker 8: Maybe The idea is that if we we're courageous enough
to look death in the face unflinchingly, and if we
spent our time putting our finger on the source of
evil itself, it would revital us, revitalize ourselves to a
degree that would be unimaginable. Now, as a biologist, you
know you can think about this too, because I don't
remember the philosopher said it. I think it was white handed,
but that might be wrong. We let our ideas die
instead of us, right, So human beings have evolved so
that we can undergo these deaths of our own ideas
and the rejuvenation that emerges in consequence of that. That
seems to be something like evolution towards what towards the
process of sacrificial logos as the thing that redeems human beings,
and that makes us biologically unique too, because we can
die in ideation and imagination instead of dying in actuality.
Speaker 5: Does that fundamentally redeem us? Does that deliver us from
death and evil? Maybe? Like the job isn't done obviously, Grinch.
Speaker 9: Of the story that we've just heard, the Old Testament
bronze serpent, it's rhyming with the New Testament Christ depicting himself?
Speaker 6: Is that bron serpent?
Speaker 9: I think from Jordan, if I may as rich suggest
from what I've heard you say before on the same story,
there's something about that harmony between that New Testament Jesus
and that Old Testament story, which is so profound and
so impressive that it's difficult to imagine it having sort
of naive human authorship.
Speaker 6: What do you make of that story and of that assertion, Well,
it doesn't impress me. I mean, I don't understand why
you would say that has I don't think jo actually
has said it had a divine inspiration. Maybe it did not.
Speaker 9: Divine inspiration necessarily, but more than just as I say,
naive human authorship, not like someone just sat down.
Speaker 8: And rope, it's every minimum, it's a it's a staggeringly
brilliant literary move, especially given the fact that that relationship
hasn't been explicated before.
Speaker 9: Do you think, for example, if you were looking in
scripture for something which would identify this as a as
a God given text, maybe.
Speaker 2: You Okay, so on this one here, Jay, I mean,
how do you look at jond and Peterson's interpretation of
these stories, And obviously he's got his own sort of
perspective on it, coming from the clinical psychologists, behavioral therapist
sort of background.
Speaker 4: I find them very interesting.
Speaker 2: Found that some of them have actually helped in my
own life even as well, to help me make sense
of things. And the way that he interprets sort of
like the Pinocchio stories and the Harry the Potter, Harry Potter,
Harry the Potter, Harry Potter and all these different archetypes
and how they relate to these biblical stories really interesting.
But Dawkins went full Shania Twain there and just doesn't
impress him much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that, you know, it goes back to
what I was talking about, the different the fourth senses
of scripture in the traditional interpretation, both Catholic and orthodox
of how you approach the texts. And one of those layers,
as I mentioned, is the moral layer. That's usually what
Peterson is looking for to try to find kind of
a practical application to individual lives in these various stories.
But that's not the only layer or level. There's also
the typological layer, which they are hinting on. It's gonna
be hitting on here with the type of the bronze
serpent and the story in numbers and how it's fulfilled
in John three with what Jesus explains to Nicodemus about
how he'll be lifted up on the cross, that he
will be the real bronze serpent for the entire world.
This is supposed to be a typological correspondence fulfilled in
the life of Christ. And I don't disagree with Jordan
Peterson's kind of psychological approach and how that might have
something to say in the domain of psychology, But in
terms of theology, it's all about the resurrection once again,
it's about Christ using the thing that was what brought
death into the world, the serpent, which we believe is
an angel. It's not just a snake, it's a fallen
angelic being that tempted Adam and Eve to disobey. That
brings about death in terms of human nature being now
subject to decay, composition, mortality, et cetera. And so the
whole point of the story in the Gospel of John
when it's referenced by Jesus, is that he's using the
thing that brought decay and death, the serpent, to reverse that.
So now death brings life. Now the serpent is the
means by which life comes, meaning Christ identifying as the
serpent the one cursed when he hangs on the cross.
So in the Orthodox liturgy we chant that Christ trampled
down death by death and upon those in the tombs,
bestowing life. So the cross, an instrument of death, now
is the instrument of life. The serpent now is the
means the instrument of life. So that's the meaning of
the story ultimately, and that passage and participation in that
life is also participation in the Eucharist. So that's the
meaning of the story and the rest of the New Testament.
So I'm not faulting Peterson for making it kind of
a psychological application. It's useful, But the very thing that
he needs to go further in is to get the
rest of the meaning, which he admits he doesn't know
what resurrection means, but that's the purpose of it. Healing
for our whole mind, body, soul, et cetera. Is in Christ,
not just in the psychotherapy office, but it's in the
christis in the or the dark church.
Speaker 4: Yeah, right.
Speaker 2: So one of the objections, and I think this is
kind of the objection that Alex and Dorkin's sort of
getting at here, is that, well, you can sort of
interpret these stories however you want. And I guess it's
sort of like this sort of postmodern take that you
can look at anything and it can have these million
different interpretations and you can interpret it any way you want.
Speaker 4: And if God really did.
Speaker 2: Want to convey these messages to us through the Bible,
why didn't he just write a manual instead of telling
this whole story about the bronze serpent. Why didn't he
just say it's best to look fear in the face.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, he did give guidance in a manual.
It's called the Church. So he set up an institution
that helps to guide us. And for two thousand plus
years you have men who have at a very profound
level experienced and understood human pathology through confession if you
want to meet some of the best psychologists on the planet.
I'm not saying Jordan Peterson's a bad one, but I
mean Orthodox priests, for example, have I know, priests that
have been hearing people's confessions for twenty thirty years. Don't
I mean, even if you disagreed with it, wouldn't you
think that that develops a person who's pretty good at
psychology and human motivation, human motivations and human pathology, etc.
Neuroses and sins. So I think that Orthodox priests are
probably some of the best psychotherapists out there, and they
are a form of that guidance that I guess you're
asking for. I don't think that it's necessary that the
Bible will be written as some sort of like basic
self help guide, because it's that's not what it's intended
to be. It's intended to be a communally sung religious
text that conveys meaning on multiple layers and levels, if
that makes sense, right.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So one of the things that I often think about
is that just on if you take it down to
the level of a relationship with his father, with a
father and his son, Yeah, I think that a good
father wouldn't just give the son all of the answers.
A good father would sort of help the son in
the process of finding out the answers for themselves and trial,
trial and error and failing and winning, etc. So I
sort of view that relationship. If God is in fact
our father, then he wouldn't just sort of tell us
all of the answers in every little thing, but rather
it's a process of unveiling the answers.
Speaker 4: Does that make sense.
Speaker 1: I think that's a very perceptive statement. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean,
a good father wants the son to also engage and
figure out on his own as well. Absolutely.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So just to sort of give up, like an overview
of what we've seen in this debate when you're sort
of having these conversations with atheists, what are some of
the things that we can take away from what we've
just seen with Jordan Pearson here in terms of how
he can push more some of the things that he
did well and some of the ideas that Dawkins. One
of the things that Dawkins said that really can be
untangled if people have these conversations in their own lives.
Speaker 1: I think Jordan has a point here with archetypes as
an inroad to speak into atheists and then the Dawkins types.
It seems to just from practical experience of what people
have seen in themselves, leaving a lot of atheists have
left atheists in the last you know what, eight years,
seven years of the Peterson phenomenon precisely through I think
this gateway, this inroad of discussing archetypes and patterns, because
it's something that is kind of accessible. We may not
be able to have a clear definition in every case
as to what archetypes are, but I think we kind
of feel and sense and recognize they're real. There's something
going on here, and so it's a great doorway. I
think we can keep using that. We can We can
look to things like you know, Carl Young and Joseph
Campbell's books to find these you know, hero myths stories.
I think those are very valuable. We can also look
to these more rational defenses like presubpositionalism, which Peterson does
seem to overlap with in many ways, talking about preconditions,
talking about metaphysical challenges, of talking about the assumptions that
somebody like Dawkins has when he makes these value judgments
and tries to set the set up these tears of
religions as to which ones are better or worse. It's
great to continue to push on those points, those pressure
points about justifying where do we get these values from?
If everything's just matter, it doesn't seem like there is
any basis of values at all. It's just purely taste,
purely subjective, really relative. So I think they to keep
pushing those points are great vectors the moral issues, you know,
pushing on subjective ethics and so forth. Yeah, I think
those are the two big things that I come away
with in this debate is the double standards, the presubositional critique,
you know, the inability to justify the ethical claims and norms.
I think those those are those are key pressure points.
Speaker 4: Yep, yeah, cool.
Speaker 2: So what have you got coming up? J any debates
lined up? I know you're working on a book and
everything at the moment.
Speaker 1: You know, we always have usually multiple times a week,
open form debate, which allows anybody who wants to come
and debate me on whatever topics, usually religious, but not always.
Sometimes we open up to geopolitics. So there's no formal
debates right now scheduled with any big names or anything.
I think, you know, the last one was the Muslim
debates that we did. Those are really big, but I'm
always open to two stuff down the road. I am
trying to finish that third Ester t Our Hollywood book.
If you do want to get my books, you can
get us to our Hollywood one and two at my
website Jaysnelsons dot com. In the shop we got signed
copies there have my six hundred and sixty page book
on all my geopolitics and philosophy texts in that book,
they're all signed copies. We have an icon theology the
ICON Conference coming up, so actually all this talk of
archetypes is very relevant to will be discussing. If you
go to my page or my Twitter you'll see link
there a link to get tickets for the Icon Conference
coming up November eighth in Florida. I think we have
four speakers. It's gonna be really deep. We're gonna go
into the symbolism of the famous rueblo of Icon. We're
going to go into the symbolism of the worship service itself.
It's going to really be really deep. It's a full
day conference. It's a lot of fun, but yeah, that's
all I can think of that's coming up. As for
fourth Hour, that's up in the air because things are
going to be auctioned next week, so we don't know
where that's going to go. But hopefully I can still
be involved in some way in that info domain.
Speaker 4: Yeah cool, awesome, dude. Well, great to have you today.
Speaker 2: Always a pleasure man. Sneak around goes as we're gonna
hang around. I'm gonna go see if Andrew's live, see
we can go crash the stream or something like that.
Speaker 4: But Jay, always good to have you. Man.
Speaker 2: All of those links are going to be down below,
and I'll see you soon and hopefully i'll see you
in Nashville, Tennessee.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, thank you man, appreciate it was a great chat.
Speaker 4: Take care bro.
Speaker 2: Alrighty guys, let me share my screen once again. I'm
gonna go see if Andrews live, see if we can
crash in crash his stream.
Speaker 10: Ah.
Speaker 4: He always pushes at nine pm. That sucks.
Speaker 2: It was four pm before, but maybe he's just pushed
it back.
Speaker 4: A little bit. So.
Speaker 2: I saw a lot of atheists in the comments debating everything,
which was very interesting to see. If you guys actually
do want to debate these things, then go and go
and go to go to Jay's Twitter or go to
his Instagram or his YouTube whatever. And he's always inviting
people into Twitter spaces. So if you guys want to
do the debates, and if you guys think that you've
had some objections to what he said, then by all means,
go and do that. What's on for the week, We've
got the election stream happening that's going to be on Monday.
We're going to have a pre election stream. I've got
a few people coming on. We've got JP, the young
guy who we interview who were covered the other day
that absolutely destroyed chenk you and we'll have a few more.
But one more super chatty up. Sorry I didn't get
to this before. Minnie says, hey, Jy, how could one
implement Bible studies, Church history and Christian history books in
one's day to day life. I actually asked him this
towards the end of our podcast together, So Reality Based Podcast.
This will also be uploaded to the Reality Based podcast
as well. Does it'll be uploaded in audio format.
Speaker 4: But yeah, lot's going on this week.
Speaker 2: We're gonna be covering the election a little bit more,
and then Monday We've got that live stream as well,
so I.
Speaker 4: Hope everybody enjoyed the stream. Apparently Rob Nor's life.
Speaker 2: I just said that, need to get Rob on the
channel at some point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if you guys want some quality content.
Speaker 11: Of course, I'm sure someone like will be like should
we The law says that you're not allowed to give
something of value to people to encourage them to vote,
and we all know Rob people would pay money to
hear your humorous stories, so actually you're probably breaking the law,
driving people blug.
Speaker 3: He's spent all day yesterday claiming that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, go check out Rob Nor.
Speaker 2: Guys, just after this if you want to watch some
quality content, I actually want to show you guys something
really really funny that happened that you guys might not
have seen.
Speaker 4: This was hilarious. Was it this one? Eight days ago? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I was absolutely pissing myself laughing. They did a debate
on Modern Day Debate about Trump and Harris, and this
guy gets on and starts doing a slam poetry. It
was the most bizarre thing I think I've ever seen
in my life. You guys got to see this. So
they all did their opening statements and then this guy
comes out with this.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 12: All right, thank you so much, Glassy and Neurotic for
your opening statement. Will head it over to a first amender.
So just looking at the time right quick, you'll have
eight and a half minutes on the floor. So much
for being here, Thank you very much.
Speaker 13: We walk head first into flames, and I do not
see the people engulfed bother themselves with screaming. They simply
smile with a red hat on.
Speaker 4: This is your average Harris support.
Speaker 13: Late do they regret their actions, and even some don't
even do that, as their bodies remained a charred husk
to be dragged away by the sycophants of an orange
dictator must not have been a real supporter, as alarm
bells echoed beyond.
Speaker 4: Yet it matters.
Speaker 13: Not for the sycophants cut their ears off years ago
to maintain their blind devotion to the Orange Man. There
I stood peering at a giant screen, faded and covered
in stains, audio caked with interference, as the splendor of
the Orange Man had faded with every broadcast. Yet I
remembered what he had said and what was repeated and
touted porches lit in his name, brethren treated as common
refuse to not be trusted any longer, and the sycophants
chided and jeered at my brothers around me. When Mexico
sends its people, they are not sending their best. They're
sending people that had lots of problems, and they're bringing
those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime.
Speaker 4: They're not bringing their best.
Speaker 5: And some I assume are good people.
Speaker 13: June sixteenth, twenty fifteen, in his campaign announcement.
Speaker 2: So you guys get the point. This literally went for
ten minutes, this whole entire thing, and then the response
was really funny.
Speaker 12: Hold on a sec, rob, you were trying to jump
in there, so I'll hand it on over you, absolutely.
Speaker 10: Josh, if you don't mind, I'd like to respond now.
I'll admit though, to being inspired. I thought to talk
about issues that affected Americans in a way such that
the average person could understand. But I've been inspired to
understand that prose is not the way to go in
this debate. So if I may, with some impromptu poetry
to respond to that great soliloquy that we just hurt.
And as they stood glistening skin yellowing from lack of nutrition,
no longer could they afford groceries, no longer could they
recognize their communities.
Speaker 5: Crime ran rampant as.
Speaker 10: They were locked down as non essential as their first
amendment was stripped from within. They looked to the heavens,
where or where could they find sustenance? And then they
saw the answer. They could eat the anger at the
mean tweets. They could go to the argument of twenty sixteen. Therefore,
sustenance is understanding that condemning a man for January since
would be their food they go. And therefore they did
cut off their ears, not for lack of hearing, but
because they must eat something, and ears were better than
nothing being offered. That was quite literally one of the
most insane, hilarious and absolutely speak absolutely asinine speeches that
I think should be clipped and will be clipped to
represent exactly what this election represents. Discussions about mean tweets
and angry things that were said going as far as
twenty sixteen, relitigating January sixth, once more completely doing what
I called out would be done in our opening statements,
as did Josh, that you would focus on the character
of Donald Trump, that you would say that he is
this unique threat and you would completely ignore all substance
as to how his policies were better for even the
groups that you claim are marginalized. You said nothing at all,
either of you about the economy. You said nothing about
foreign policy.
Speaker 2: So I just thought that that was so unbelievably hilarious.
I mean, Bro literally did an orange Man Bad poem.
You know that the sort of Harris delusion has come
full arc when you get a literal orange Man bad poem.
Speaker 4: It was about to cry. I'm serious.
Speaker 2: Look at his face now listen, Queen's in on this,
can yeah see that? Look at that face?
Speaker 4: Look at that face. Oh dear, what.
Speaker 2: Have we just witnessed? Anyways, like I said, guys, we're
going to sign out, but good good stream go to
Rob Noa. He's live if you guys want to catch
some more great content. He's been doing some great debates recently.
Speaker 4: Rob Now.
Speaker 6: He's currently Okay.
Speaker 4: I'm not all right, So guys, that's it from me.
Speaker 2: Let me know what you thought in the comments. I
forget to like the video. Guys, fourteen hundred of you
nearly still in this live there was I think sixteen
or seventeen hundred at its peak.
Speaker 4: Just smash that like button.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to the channel if you haven't already, and let
me know in the comments, because I do read this stuff. Guys,
let me know in the comments. What kind of streams
you like we do these reviews. I can do some
chill streams, or we just hang around and review some
content and just laugh at liberals. I love laughing at liberals,
as you guys know. We can make fun of the degenerates.
We can watch along with some sort of stuff the
debates obviously good stuff as well elections streams. I might
do some TikTok invasions. Guys, when Andrew goes to Los Angeles,
when he goes to California to go on the Whatever podcast,
he obviously leaves the fort for a few weeks, so
somebody's got to hold it down with the TikTok invasions.
We had some of the best TikTok invasions you've ever
seen last few weeks, where he would get in there
and he would start roasting these liberals and then they'd
kick him out, and then I'd get straight in after him,
and then I'd do the same thing, and then one
after the other, the Crucible crew just comes in and
just trolls these people and it's.
Speaker 4: Utterly hilarious.
Speaker 2: So jump in a crucible TikTok invasion. Turn those notifications
on because you guys can get involved and help just
troll these troll these liberals. It's unbelievable. They get so mad.
So yeah, let me know what you guys want to see.
In the comments below, Andrew said he'd teach me how
to do some TikTok invasions if you guys would like
to see that. Someone's got to do it when he's away.
So appreciate you all, much love to you all, and
with that, I'm going to sign out