Reflections on a Conversation between Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson
I recently viewed an intriguing debate on YouTube between the esteemed Oxford evolutionary biologist, Dr. Richard Dawkins, and the equally esteemed clinical psychologist from the University of Toronto, Dr. Jordan Peterson. While I cannot claim the academic credentials of these well-read intellectuals, I can offer a layman’s perspective on some of the points they raised in their debate.
The Historicity of the Bible
One of the fascinating issues raised in this conversation addressed the factual accuracy and historical validity of events described in the Bible. Can we know for certain that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, that he lived and preached in Judea, was crucified, and subsequently resurrected on the third day following his death?
My comment on this point is that, like any other historical event that occurred centuries ago — in this case, nearly 2000 years ago (i.e., circa 33 A.D.) — we follow the evidence that we have. In the case of events described in the Bible, we have the testimony of the Biblical texts as well as other historical accounts, such as those of the historian Josephus.
Can we know for certain that Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, or Napoleon lived and died centuries ago? We follow the textual and archaeological evidence as it is and arrive at our conclusions as they are. Ultimately, as with any evidence dating back 2,000 years, there are a number of issues with Biblical historicity that make it debatable.
However… I contend that the strict historical accuracy of the events described in the Bible is not the point. It may be a concern from a fundamentalist perspective — to someone who is interested in the literal accuracy of the Bible.
But the point of the Bible is not to be a historical, literally accurate document, in the vein of a scientific treatise, for example. The Bible is about values, morals, doctrine, allegory, and mythology. It is about providing meaning and inspiration to people and providing profound insights into the human condition. The Bible gives us deep insights into human motivations, how societies are shaped, how civilizations rise and fall, and the corrosive effects of human greed and lust for power.
The city of Troy was identified and excavated as a historical site by archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann in 1871, suggesting a historical validity underlying myths about the Trojan War. Does that mean, however, that the Homeric epics — the Iliad and the Odyssey — are historically accurate? They could be, but we have no way of knowing for sure. But does the fact that we cannot determine their historicity undermine their value as profound literary texts? I would argue not, because a concern with historical accuracy is not the point of these epic works.
The Bible is a complex text which broadly encompasses a number of literary genres, including myth and legend, poetry, prayer, hymns and songs, parable and allegory, philosophy and mysticism, prophecy, letters of exhortation, as well as historical chronicle. Does it even make sense to question whether it is historically accurate? Perhaps it makes sense to ask this question about the Bible’s historical subsections, but I would suggest that the Bible’s mythical, allegorical, and mystical aspects are true in a different sense.
Religion used to Legitimize Atrocity
Another profound point raised by Richard Dawkins has to do with the justification of evils and atrocities in the Bible, which are often blindly emulated by religious people in subsequent generations without critical consideration or reflection. Dawkins makes a profound point about the justification of evil and atrocity by those who set themselves up as religious authorities, quoting sacred and religious texts, like the Bible, the Koran, etc., in order to authorize and validate horrendous evils.
This is all too true of the Bible. Slavery, genocide, racial discrimination, the oppression of women, the persecution of minorities, etc., have frequently been justified and legitimized by religious, even Biblical, textual citations.
The reality is that such practices were widely prevalent throughout archaic societies. We find these evils to be repugnant from the perspective of a modern, “enlightened” sensibility, but can we really be so sure of our own moral superiority over the “benighted” ancients? Modernity, in fact, has its own share of evils and atrocities that have frequently been justified and legitimized in the name of science and progress. Evils related to industrialization, institutionalized atheism (such as in communist nations), fascism and national socialism, 21st-century practices involving gender affirmation and wokeism, etc., are some examples.
In my personal understanding, Biblical narratives are often mythical and allegorical explorations of deeper truths regarding the human condition. For example, the story of the Tower of Babel attempts to explain linguistic and cultural diversity and the resulting problems with communication; the story of Moses addresses the issue of liberation from enslavement under a system of institutionalized immorality and oppression; the story of Sodom and Gomorrah describes the destruction of deeply corrupt, immoral societies by Divine intervention; the story of David and Goliath describes the power of faith to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds; the story of Cain and Abel recounts the mythical origins of violence; the story of Adam and Eve describes the loss of primeval innocence; the story of Noah recounts the redemptive power of inspired visionary genius; the story of Abraham and Isaac allegorically repudiates the barbaric practice of human sacrifice; the story of Paul and Stephen describes the destructiveness of self-righteous religious bigotry, and the life of Jesus tells the story of the struggle of the righteous individual against a tyrannical system characterized by political oppression, religious hypocrisy and mercenary greed.
Can these profound philosophical insights be misused in order to justify injustice, atrocity, and evil? Certainly. Does that undermine the value of the insights these stories provide when taken in context? I would argue that their value remains.
The Biblical concept of God, I would suggest, is not static, but evolves over time. In fact, the Bible documents the evolution of the human understanding of the nature of the Divine. The Bible was written by fallible human beings who had an imperfect understanding of who and what God really is. There is a discernible pattern of evolution from early concepts of God as ancient anthropomorphic and zoomorphic idols inspiring fear and demanding ritual sacrifice, to the concept of a stern moralistic judge demanding the utter destruction of “immoral heathens,” to a benevolent, loving God of mercy and grace, as claimed by Jesus Christ in an act of supreme self-sacrifice.
I would suggest, therefore, that the Biblical understanding of God, and therefore, of morality and of good and evil, is an evolving one, and this evolution is clearly documented in the Bible. To the discerning student, this makes the Biblical text invaluable because it so well recounts the evolution of metaphysical and moral ideas. I don’t believe it is a valid justification for the ancient crimes and atrocities it describes, though.
An excellent example of this idea is the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. This story recounts how the Biblical patriarch Abraham was initially convinced that his religious obligations required him to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God — reflecting a primitive ideation of God as a wrathful, intimidating being demanding human sacrifice. However, the story allegorically describes a shift in perspective from this primeval image of God to a relatively more benign, merciful, and modern concept of God, when, at the last moment, Abraham is allowed to spare his son and sacrifice an animal instead. Some might argue, from this episode, that the Bible justifies human sacrifice… I would suggest that making such a claim misses the point of the story — it is an account of the evolution of the human concept of God.
Comparative Religion
How does the Bible compare with the mythologies of other cultures and traditions?
As I mentioned previously, while the Bible presents us with a profound set of insights into the human condition, it can also be — and indeed has been — used to justify all manner of terrible evils. These range from the justification of slavery, genocide, racism, conquest, and colonialism, to rape, murder, the oppression of women, the persecution of alternative belief systems, etc.
However, the same can be said of any other belief system anywhere in the world. There are both positive and negative aspects to all belief systems. One can look at even the most apparently diabolical and seemingly demonic (or at least demonized) ideology or belief system anywhere in the world and discover that it has positive attributes, however scarce they may be.
I would question, however, whether it is really meaningful to compare and contrast belief systems for their virtues and vices, pitting them against each other and placing them in a hierarchy of value. Is it not better to acknowledge that all belief systems are flawed to some extent and can be misused to justify terrible evils and atrocities, while, at the same time, they each also contain profound truths, values, and positive attributes? Can we not, therefore, learn from all belief systems and religious traditions — acknowledging their flaws while arriving at a deeper understanding of truths about human nature — without becoming fixated on any specific religious dogma or seeking to compare and contrast between the attributes of apparently competing dogmas? Is it not possible to distill all traditional understandings of God and religion into a deeper set of truths that are not bound by any specific tradition or dogma?
Perhaps this is one of the messages of Christianity itself — that no specific religious dogma holds a monopoly on the truth — and that simple values like compassion, kindness, humanity, grace, and charity are, ultimately, more meaningful and profound than any religious dogma can ever be.
The Perception Delusion
In widely read texts such as The God Delusion and The Magic of Reality, Richard Dawkins proposes and celebrates an atheistic worldview grounded in empirical scientific observation and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Dawkins suggests that these best explain the biodiversity we encounter on Earth. It also espouses the Freudian perspective that religion is a collective delusion or hallucination.
I would argue, however, for a different kind of delusion, which I like to call “the Perception Delusion.” In simple terms, this is the delusion that perception = reality.
The truth is that our perception of reality is determined not just by what is “out there,” but also by what is “in here.”
A simple example of this principle is that of a color-blind person who, seeing the world exclusively in shades of grey, naturally assumes that the concept of color itself is a delusion and dismisses out of hand any testimony regarding the actual colorful nature of reality.
By the same token, Darwinian evolutionary biologists and scientific materialists like Dawkins appear to be operating from the assumption that their own five-sensory perception of reality equates to objective reality. I would suggest that this is a fallacy.
It should be noted that Darwin was a 19th-century biologist who emerged from an imperialist, colonialist society. The prevailing, underlying assumptions inherent in such a society, for example, regarding the cultural, ethnic, and racial supremacy of European colonialists over their imperial subjects around the world, undoubtedly informed Darwin’s opinions and conclusions, at least at a subconscious level. Whereas the colonial and imperial project was previously justified on religious grounds, as with the Spanish conquistadors in South America, Darwin attempted, I would suggest, to justify colonialism and imperialism on scientific grounds. The vestiges of these ideas remain with us to this day and continue to inform and color our perceptions.
The work of the noted psychologist Carl G. Jung also addresses the theme of the “perception delusion.” Jung describes, in his work, the act of psychological projection, which is another way of saying that our perceptions of the external world are shaped by our internal state of mind. Studies into linguistic analysis and how language shapes perception also point to the variability of our perception of reality, as determined, in this case, by our very verbal lexicon. Demonstrations of the effects of hypnosis and subliminal suggestion also point to the variability of perception as influenced by our internal state.
Not all claims of extra-sensory perception or mystical experiences are necessarily true or accurate. A number of them may well be entirely fabricated or delusional, as suggested by Freud and Dawkins. But to suggest that all such claims are invalid is a stretch, in my opinion.
It may be argued that the claims of Darwinian scientists and materialists are justified by scientific instrumentation, but it must be pointed out that scientific instruments are merely extensions of normal sensory perception. They are not tuned to pick up on any extra-sensory stimuli, which might undermine the worldview of the scientific materialists who built them.
In spite of this, the famed quantum-mechanics double-slit experiment offers a glimpse beyond the ordinary into the deeply unsettling and mysterious world of quantum theory. The verification of wave-particle duality, directly tied to the action of an observer, demonstrates undeniably that perception and reality are not the same and that there are deeper, hidden, mysterious levels of reality beyond that which is obviously discernible to us.
The suggestion that anyone is mistaken if their concept of reality happens to be at odds with the rather narrow scientific, materialist worldview espoused by a small group of evolutionary biologists trained in Darwinian theory and based at the University of Oxford, UK, is a pretty far-fetched claim, in my opinion. It is no less far-fetched than claims of extrasensory perception or mystical experiences may seem at first glance.
The likelier explanation, in my estimation, is that the intellectuals, like Richard Dawkins, who claim to have a monopoly on reality, are, in fact, mistaken. They perceive reality through a narrow lens, dismissing any claims to the contrary without in-depth investigation into their veracity.
