Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson in conversation
I heard an earlier conversation between these two, and this one seems to have gone the same way. Dawkins is clear about what he believes and what he does not believe. He speaks in a simple and straightforward manner. But when I hear Peterson speak about Christianity, he sounds like he is not clear on what he believes. And even if he is, he is unable to put his ideas forward in a similarly straightforward manner.
For example, Dawkins asks Peterson, do you believe in the virgin birth? It is a simple question. But Peterson just cannot give a simple yes or no answer. And we could argue that Peterson has a tendency to over-intellectualize any discussion. It just seems to me that on questions of faith, sure after much internal thought and debate, soul-searching, there is value in planting your flag. Dawkins does this; Peterson cannot.
Now to be fair, Peterson's position seems to be: The values of the Bible are good, perhaps providential, therefore Christianity is true in the most important sense. But for me, and Dawkins failed to point this out, the values of Aesop's Fables are also good, but no one argues that the stories are true. Perhaps valuable, but not true. That is certainly my own view of the New Testament.
It seems to me that Peterson wants the values of Christianity while sidestepping the relevance of the question of whether or not the Bible is true. My question for him would be: What's wrong with appreciating the values and at the same time questioning the veracity of the Biblical text? The answer, I think, is that Peterson and billions of Christians, need the Bible to stand above myths and fables. If we equate the Christian story to Greek mythology then they, the Christians, lose their conception of the divine.
And most people seem to need something greater than themselves to believe in. Including, by the way, atheists, who almost universally replace the divine with government as the something greater than themselves. Sadly, Dawkins himself is firmly in that camp.
While there are any number of ways of categorizing Christians, one certain bifurcation is between those in the evangelical camp who believe that every word in the Bible is the literal and unalterable word of God. And those who believe that the Bible is a collection of ancient stories, largely allegorical, collected to serve as the foundational text of the Christian faith.
So can we then ask: What is a Christian? Can both of these competing groups be the Christians they claim to be? I have two thoughts on this question. First, if these two groups both want to claim the Christian mantle that is their prerogative. Based on this conversation, Jordan Peterson clearly falls into the allegorical camp.
Second, regardless of the literal/allegorical dichotomy, it seems to me that, at a minimum, Christians simply must believe in the Apostle's Creed. Here's the version I grew up with. If you do not believe something along these lines, you are at best a secular Christian. Like Professor Dawkins himself. Which is perfectly fine. But I think it is important to understand, for yourself, that you are something short of a Christian. No matter what else one might say about Christianity, it does require faith. Absolutely.
Clearly Jordan Peterson wants to be a Christian. He just cannot quite believe the tenets of the Christian faith. He'll get no help from Richard Dawkins.
Which brings us to the final aspect of this conversation worth noting. I never get the impression that Dawkins cares if his interlocutors agree with him. Sure I think he wants to convince his readers and viewers that his ideas are based on science and reason, and therefore are ultimately, correct. But I don't think he cares too much about what Jordan Peterson believes. On the other hand, I get the impression that Peterson cares a great deal about what Richard Dawkins believes.
The only time I have ever seen an exception to Dawkins' indifference was during his conversation with former atheist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Here Dawkins really seemed disconcerted that his friend now says that she no longer shares his unbelief. I think it would be an interesting question to ask: In retrospect does Dawkins actually believe Hirsi Ali? In other words, does Dawkins believe that Hirsi Ali is now truly a Christian, or does he believe that she is only now claiming Christianity in order to provide a method and the manpower to counter Islam? If you read her essay on her conversion, her's is a Christianity devoid of faith. So at most, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a secular Christian, like Richard Dawkins, and yes, like...
Jordan Peterson.