Jordan Peterson interview with Richard Dawkins - Review Commentary

It was painful to watch the interview between Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins. Jordan prefaces the recording by mentioning that it was conducted in November of 2021 so it took him over six months to muster up the courage to post it publicly.
The fact that he did not bury it permanently shows a level of humility worthy of commendation since it is no way flattering towards Peterson. Posting it must be all the more painful since the original intent likely included a reasonable hope of self-validation to be able to carry on a discussion with the darling of modern-day atheism.
That being said, there is nothing else commendable about the interview. Peterson wastes two hours of unnecessary preamble with verbiage that does little more than annoy the ever pompous and vulgar Dawkins; causing him to lash out here and there with venomous dismissals of Peterson’s fondness for symbols, in particular the symbol of the intertwined snakes being similar to the double-helix of DNA. While inconsequential, Dawkins uses this comparison to belittle his colleague in a way that displays his own contempt and arrogance for anything not to his liking.
Finally, after two hours, he presents the convoluted question:
“When you talk about religion; do you identify the religious impulse let’s say or even the religious phenomena with the totalitarian proclivity for dogmatic certainty and the potential acceleration of aggression and atrocity as a consequence?”
The question from Peterson itself was a softball, albeit jumbled question, as to whether religion contributes to atrocities. Most atheists would jump at the chance to agree; but this is not the question Dawkins heard. He knew what was coming after such a long and drawn-out preamble, and he knew essentially what Peterson wanted to ask and that is, “Do you believe in God and if not, why not?” and so that was the question he answered.
Dawkins replies,
“No. I care first and foremost about scientific truth. And so to me, it is a scientific question whether there is a supernatural creative power, intelligence in the universe. I think that’s a very fascinated question that; if that were true it would be the most important scientific truth there is. It would be a fundamentally different kind of universe that we live in; if there is a creative intelligence.
So, although I have a secondary interest in matters concerned with religion especially in Islam, my fundamental interest is in the scientific truth. It is a scientific question even if it can’t be answered by scientific means. There either is a God or there isn’t. There either is a creator or not in the case of the universe; an intelligence. I think there’s not. I think that intelligence is something that comes late into the universe as a consequence of a long evolutionary process. It happened here; no doubt probably happened in other parts of the universe.”
But to just examine Dawkins’ answer for a moment. He believes that intelligence came ‘late into the universe’. Presumably with man; but given his arrogance I would not put it past him, that he thinks it arrived with himself. It is hard to think of a more presumptuous, arrogant and blind statement that could be uttered by a human of any level of intelligence. No wonder the Psalmist wrote: The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
Dawkins lays claim to intelligence and has shown himself to be a complete and utter fool. He is a vulgar Ebenezer Scrooge devoid of any awareness of the divine reality which God has graciously displayed to use through His creation.
Peterson for his part is a man who wants to have faith but does not know how. He is rich both materially and intellectually yet begs on a street corner for someone to validate his own awareness of the reality of God. He had a glimpse of divine reality through a severe mushroom trip; just as Sam Harris did. But as far as living out a faith in Christ, he is as impoverished as the derelicts who live on skid row.
Yet he still has a far greater chance of entering the kingdom of God than Richard Dawkins will ever have. Between the two of them having a discussion, there is nothing to see other than two pundits poking at a fire expecting to find water.
They both need to turn their attention to Christ, the source of truth, the source of true living water.