Peterson Vs. Dawkins
A Difference in Interest and Personality
A long awaited discussion, or debate between, famous atheist and scientist Dr. Richard Dawkins and psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson was finally filmed and released earlier this week. It was a lot of fun for me to watch and has made me think about a lot of things, which is what these types of discussion should do. But I did of course get frustrated, and I think I know why.
Dr. Peterson and Dr. Dawkins nailed it when they pointed out a difference in how their respective minds work.
Dr. Peterson is deeply interested in the images, symbols and stories of our ancestors as they collectively point to a value hierarchy that points us in a direction. Dr. Dawkins is incredibly interested in the scientific facts of the material world.
There is a chasm between those two things that needs to be bridged but I don’t know if it can be done by one person alone. I’ve had this same experience with my wife.
Personalities and Interests
I was researching the Funeral Oration by Pericles, who was delivering a eulogy for Athenian soldiers slain in the Peloponnesian war. If you don’t know, this speech by Pericles was in part the template for both famous speeches given at Gettysburg all the way up to speeches written for President Obama.
Edward Everett gave the speech that preceded Abraham Lincoln’s and famously spoke for two hours while Lincoln spoke for about two minutes.
There was a line I read in Everett’s opening that stunned me for its eloquence and depth. I immediately got up and went into our bedroom to read it to my wife. Her reaction wasn’t what I wanted. She had no idea why I was impressed.
“Standing beneath this serene sky, overlooking these broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year, the mighty Alleghenies dimly towering before us, the graves of our brethren beneath our feet, it is with hesitation that I raise my poor voice to break the eloquent silence of God and Nature.” — Edward Everett
It has nothing to do with intelligence or education. She is a highly trained psychologist, just like Dr. Peterson, and runs her own business where she employs several people. She’s super smart, conscientious, and the kindest person you’ll ever meet. But there is a difference between us that I think is the difference between Dr. Peterson and Dr. Dawkins: Interest in abstract ideas.
The line from the speech I read connected the majesty of the landscape to the eternal nature of the sacrifices made, while being humble in the face of the human sacrifices which mere words in a speech could never capture. Lincoln, Pericles, and Everett all stated something similar.
People interested in abstract ideas love that kind of thing. People less interested in abstractions simply aren’t as interested. And we just have to get over it. Both types of people, and all of those in between are important to have for their own interests which point them in directions helpful to different people in different ways.
Material Actuality vs. Purpose
I saw a lot of this as Dr. Dawkins kept pressing Dr. Peterson on his belief in the actuality of a virgin birth or resurrection. These are material realities that aren’t necessary for the validity or utility of the ideas that the stories produce. They make total sense for a materialist scientist to ask, but they are not interesting to someone who is investigating religious stories as data points which map out the human mind. They are asking different questions:
What is the human brain made of and what does that tell us about how it functions?
What is the purpose of the human mind based on what it has produced?
Dr. Dawkins is going to provide us with wonderful ideas that help us understand the nature of the material world, while Dr. Peterson is going to help us put that in context of what it means to be human and in what direction we should aim.
My wife will forever be interested in the practicality of things while I will be deep in my head connecting abstract ideas.
Both are important and both are vital to human progress.