Comments by "Peter deWolf" (@StoneShards) on "Dawkins vs Peterson: Memes \u0026 Archetypes | Alex O’Connor Moderates | EP 491" video.

  1. "Did it really happen?" Is the historical presentation true? Accurate? Verifiable?! Compared to all the "history" that actually happened, the proportion of it present in current recorded history is infinitesimal. The idea of verifying ancient history seems, therefore, ridiculous!
    1
  2. It doesn't matter if Cain and Abel actually existed or not! The value of the lessons of these characters' lives is the same, regardless. Belief that they DID exist strengthens and deepens the personal value of the lessons for the practitioner of the religion. Some quantum physicists wonder if FACTS actually exist.
    1
  3. A distinction between the "divine" and the "mundane"?? Seriously? The mundane is just another expression of the divine. The idea of God is omnipresence. Being everywhere and everywhen present, God is also omniscient and omnipotent. At every point in space/time a bit of the awareness of God precipitates the quantum realm of reality, which, in it's turn, precipitates the subatomic level of reality. The subatomic level engenders the atomic, and the atomic, the molecular, which is the world of physical reality. It's all God stuff. These levels are distinguished by a particular matter/energy density, the physical level being the most material and least energetic. "Redemption" is about the God stuff at the lowest level being unresponsive to "spiritual gravity"...sort of sleeping. God acts through our personal efforts to confront the unknown to redeem the trapped God stuff to greater responsiveness to the attraction of Godhead.
    1
  4. Dawkins "doesn't think of Christianity as a truth system". A "truth system"? That's a curious phrase...Science doesn't traffic in "truth"--Dawkins should know better than that.
    1
  5. Alex, your furniture is hideous! 😉 Did you design the Tesla truck?! 🙃
    1
  6. The "battle", in human terms, is the attempt to order the disorder we encounter at the edge of understanding. The disorder, though, is NOT malicious, but it's natural for us to perceive it as malicious, granting it fearful visages in our attempt to order it into knowledge. The influence of disorder can also produce "novelty", which can aid and assist the imposition of order, paradoxically.
    1