Peterson vs Dawkins' 'Drunk on Symbols' Insult, Defending Archetypal Patterns & Religion

Today we'll watch Jordan Peterson respond to Richard Dawkins' insult that he is "Drunk on Symbols" and I'll throw in my brief 2 cents on the importance of the archetypal patterns and symbolic world of religious systems that Dawkins does not understand.

[JoshRueff]

*Pattern recognition and mastery = competence. (Patterns meaning archetypal patterns, symbolic patterns, etc.) And competence brings with it success, love, power, status, joy, peace and much more. Religious language (the Bible, tradition, etc) is rich with these patterns, and Jung reveals many of them.

These religious/archetypal/symbolic patterns are primal images and motifs that recur across cultures and epochs, including symbols like the cross, the mandala, the serpent, or the tree of life. These symbols carry deep psychological, higher meaning and wisdom.

Understanding this language is what sets thinkers like Jordan Peterson apart and makes their work so valuable, but when people like Dawkins encounter it, the first response is often skepticism at best. In Dawkins' case, skepticism and ridicule (calling Peterson "drunk on symbols"). For all the respect I have for Dawkins, it's hard to watch someone as intelligent as him discuss the things he knows so little about; the religious language of symbolism, archetypal patterns, the symbolic world etc.

It was interesting to hear Peterson's take on it, especially on memes vs archetypes and Dawkins' apparent lack of knowledge/understanding in the world of patterns and symbols.

[drm]

People get to attached to their own ideas, an attack on your idea becomes an attack on your self. That goes both ways. Then chronic accessibility shapes your perspective and what you pay attention to, meaning readily available mental sets and long standing stances take over. We need to be more compassionate, humble and open minded if we want to have meaningful conversation

[antonioperez]

In a quiet London café, Jordan Peterson and Richard Dawkins sat across from one another, engaged in an intense discussion. Dawkins, the famed biologist and outspoken atheist, had long been critical of religious symbolism, seeing it as an impediment to rational thought. Peterson, known for his deep interest in psychology and symbolism, was eager to explore a thought he’d been mulling over: the idea that even science—and especially evolution—was deeply reliant on symbols.

As the conversation progressed, Peterson took a sip of his coffee and leaned in. “You know, Richard, you often describe religious belief as a kind of delusion, a reliance on symbols that can lead people away from the real world. But have you considered how much science itself depends on symbols?”

Dawkins raised an eyebrow, intrigued but skeptical. “Science uses symbols, sure—mathematical equations, chemical formulas, those sorts of things. But that’s a far cry from the imaginary symbols of religion, which are untethered from reality. Scientific symbols represent something objective.”

Peterson nodded, a small smile crossing his face. “Exactly. But that’s the point, isn’t it? Scientific symbols represent things that we can’t quite grasp directly. When we use DNA to map evolutionary history, we’re relying on something symbolic—a sequence of molecules—to understand the flow of time, the unfolding of life. Those symbols are one layer removed from reality, yet they let us understand life in profound ways.”

Dawkins considered this, then said, “Yes, DNA is a kind of code. But it’s not ‘symbolic’ in the religious sense. DNA is real. It’s physical.”

“True, ” Peterson replied, “but the way we interpret it is through symbols. Think of DNA as a kind of biological language, encoding instructions for building organisms. But we only understand it by mapping those patterns, decoding them into models and abstractions. It’s similar to the way a myth encodes ideas about human experience.”

Dawkins scoffed, though not without a hint of amusement. “You’re comparing DNA to myth now? I thought you’d be more precise than that, Jordan.”

“Bear with me, ” Peterson said. “When we analyze a DNA sequence, we’re essentially reading a story about survival and adaptation that’s been encoded over billions of years. We’re reading a ‘script’ that tells us about the journey of life, species, and survival—an abstraction, like any symbol. The genetic code is real, but how we understand it, track its changes, and interpret its meaning requires us to treat it symbolically.”

Dawkins took a thoughtful sip of tea. “Alright, I’ll grant you that DNA is like a code, a form of biological language. But it’s still far more grounded than religious symbols. It describes real, observable phenomena.”

“Absolutely, ” Peterson agreed, “but symbols aren’t just about describing things; they’re tools for understanding. Think about the double helix structure of DNA. The shape itself is a symbol, an abstraction that allows us to conceptualize something we can’t see directly. And that shape carries enormous symbolic weight for anyone who studies life. It’s a representation that guides us, a bridge between the real and the abstract.”

Dawkins sighed, leaning back in his chair, looking both wary and curious. “And where do you see this going? I still don’t see the relevance to religion.”

Peterson leaned forward, his gaze intense. “It’s the nature of symbols, Richard. They represent things that are real but elusive, ideas too complex to hold in one’s mind all at once. In science, a formula or a model is a symbolic stand-in that helps us understand things beyond immediate grasp, much as a myth might symbolize aspects of human nature that are difficult to express directly.”

Dawkins frowned, but he was listening intently. “And what does this have to do with evolution, exactly?”

Peterson smiled, sensing an opening. “Consider evolution itself. When we talk about ‘natural selection’ or ‘survival of the fittest, ’ we’re not describing a conscious process. We’re using symbolic language to describe the slow, blind process of adaptation over time. Evolutionary pressures don’t have ‘goals’ or ‘purposes, ’ yet we use these terms symbolically to make sense of them.”

Dawkins let out a slow exhale, nodding. “You’re saying that in describing evolution, we personify it—make it symbolic—to better understand its effects.”

“Yes, ” Peterson replied, his voice soft but emphatic. “Science has to create symbols to talk about things that don’t have intrinsic meaning or consciousness—like the forces of evolution. Symbols let us anthropomorphize or give meaning to these processes. When you use terms like ‘selfish gene, ’ you’re inviting people to imagine a gene with intentions, even though you know it has none.”

Dawkins was silent for a long moment, his gaze far off. “Alright, I’ll admit, ” he said finally, “I hadn’t considered it that way. Symbols, even in science, do help us bridge the gap between abstraction and understanding. But that doesn’t make them comparable to religious myths.”

“Maybe not, ” Peterson acknowledged, “but what if they serve a similar purpose? Religious symbols have historically allowed people to grapple with the mysteries of life—birth, death, morality, purpose. And scientific symbols allow us to grapple with the mysteries of the natural world. Perhaps, just as myths give us frameworks for understanding ourselves, scientific symbols give us frameworks for understanding life.”

Dawkins looked up, his eyes a mix of skepticism and reflection. “Are you suggesting that science and religion are just two sides of the same coin?”

“Not quite, ” Peterson said, shaking his head. “They approach reality from different angles, yes, but both rely on symbols to make sense of something vast, complex, and ultimately mysterious. Religion gives people symbols for morality, meaning, and purpose. Science gives us symbols for forces, particles, and processes. In both cases, we’re ‘drunk on symbols’—we’re relying on representations to understand things far greater than ourselves.”

Dawkins allowed himself a small smile. “Perhaps there’s some truth in that, Jordan. Though I’d argue that science uses symbols to illuminate reality, while religion uses them to obscure it.”

Peterson nodded, not expecting complete agreement. “Fair enough, Richard. But maybe there’s something to be said for acknowledging that we all rely on symbols—whether we’re reading scripture, modeling DNA, or tracing the lineage of life. In both cases, symbols help us connect to something real, even if we can only see it dimly.”

As the two sat in contemplative silence, each was left with a sense of the vastness of the world they both sought to understand—one through the lens of faith and symbolism, the other through the clarity of science. Perhaps, they realized, both perspectives had more in common than they’d ever anticipated.

[yowl]

It's not survivability, that's where you've gone wrong.

[vincnt]

I think we might never be able to fully grasp the highest patterns with any system we come up with, because we are part of these patterns.
We are fundamentally limited, I think the highest pattern we can grasp is probably one describing ourselves and how we function, and that would be mightily impressive, but describing truth itself, the whole truth, seems far off... if not impossible.
I think Gödels Incompleteness applies to brain structures as well (although maybe not to all brain structures, quantum weirdness could change our understanding of that soon).
Anyway, very cool stuff, keep it uo 🙌

[Bloink]

You don't need science to figure out morality, and you certainly don't need religion or "religious language".

[beyondadwa]

Сорри, что я не пишу на английском в комментариях под англоязычным видео.
Если бы я был атеистом в общепринятом смысле слова, я бы был против Докинза просто потому что это интеллектуальный карлик и выставляет даже атеистов в плохом свете