과학과 종교 신화의 교차점

### 신앙, 과학, 문화적 기독교의 교차점 탐구하기
* ✝ 화자는 **죄를 위한 예수님의 희생에 대한 믿음**을 표현하지만 성경 본문에 대한 완전한 이해가 부족함을 인정하며, 더 깊이 탐구할수록 명확한 답보다는 **더 많은 질문**으로 이어진다는 점을 강조합니다.
* 🔬 양자 물리학에 비유하며, 양자 현상의 복잡성은 이해하기 어렵지만, 성서 이야기를 둘러싼 미스터리와 달리 **이 이론의 예측력은 놀라울 정도로 정확**하다는 점에 주목합니다.
* 📖 토론은 연사가 **'문화적 기독교인'이라는 정체성**을 드러내며 기독교의 진리 주장에 대한 믿음보다는 기독교에서 파생된 문화적 요소에 대한 친밀감을 시사하는 것으로 전환됩니다.
* ⚖ 그들은 주류 기독교와 더 억압적인 시스템을 대조하면서 다양한 문화적 전통의 윤리적 타당성을 비판하고, **윤리의 개선이 아무리 미미하더라도 역사적 야만의 맥락에서 주목할 만하다**는 것을 인정합니다.
* 🧠 이 대화는 성경의 내러티브를 은유적인 것으로 이해할 수 있는지 사실적인 것으로 이해할 수 있는지 의문을 제기하며 진리의 본질을 탐구하고, 화자는 **동정녀 탄생과 부활과 같은 특정 주장에 대한 불확실성**을 인정합니다.
* 📜 그들은 기독교 이야기의 중요성은 문자 그대로의 진리보다는 **문화적 영향과 도덕적 함의**에 있다고 주장하며, 사실과 가치 사이의 간극을 메우는 데 어려움이 있음을 인식하고 있습니다.
* 🔍 이 대화는 과학적 탐구조차도 비과학적 가치와 우선순위에 영향을 받아 **절대적 진리에 대한 탐구를 복잡하게 만든다**는 과학적 기업 내 내재된 가정을 강조합니다.
* 💬 궁극적으로 연사와 대담자는 **신화와 과학적 사실의 중요성에 대한 서로 다른 관점**을 인정하고, 인간의 경험과 도덕성을 이해하는 데 있어 두 가지 모두의 심오한 함의에 초점을 맞춥니다.

기독교의 문화적 영향력은 과학적 검증이 부족함에도 불구하고 지속되고 있습니다.

[Music] I believe that as a fact that Jesus died for our sins. There are elements of the texts that I don't claim to understand. What my experience has been is that the more deeply I look into these texts, the more I learn that

it doesn't mean that I can proclaim full knowledge of what the texts proclaim. But I don't think, and I'm not trying to play a trick here, you know, I watched an interview that you did recently where you were talking, I think it was with

Pierce Morgan, yeah, about the, about the um, complexities of trying to understand the strange realm of quantum phenomena, right? And we have a trouble with quantum phenomena because at the micro level, things don't act like things act at the macro level. So they escape our

intuitions. And one of the things you said was that although it's perhaps even impossible for creatures embodied like us to get a grip on quantum phenomena, the strange wave particle duality for example, we have ample evidence that it works and stellarlyte

[Music] but in so far as I've been able to understand the text, every time I make an improvement in understanding it reveals something to me that's just like shattering. Quantum physics is deeply mysterious and you're saying that biblical texts are deeply mysterious. The

difference is, quantum physics, the predictions you derive from quantum physics are fulfilled to the umth decimal place, theth deal place. I, I mean, I think it was Richard Feynman who says equivalent toed in the width of North America to the nearest hair's breadth. That's

impressive that that's doubt the the mystery there as it were gains its credentials by its predictions the mysteries of the Bible don't have any credentials at all as far as I can make out well I guess the credentials that I would put you made a statement a couple

of months ago that I found very interesting and I don't claim to understand it and I'm not trying to put you on the spot with it you said that you were a cultural Christian okay and so that raised a number of questions in my mind you know and the first question

was you all changing the subject to no I'm no I'm no I'm not no I don't think so I may be leaping outside of the topic a bit to get back cultural Christianity but I think because I I have a list of questions that you wanted to ask and

that is one of them but I think Professor do you referring to the predictive power and to the utility of the stories okay so that's actually what I was trying to on okay so that that was the point well it seemed to me that your proclamation that you are a cultural

Christian was a recognition um and a and a statement that you had found something in the culture that had been derived from Christianity that you had an affinity with and that there's some reason for that and one of the things I wanted to ask you is well what do you

think that Christianity got right that allows you to make a statement like that I mean I know I know that there's differences perhaps in what we both think about the ultimate veracity of the biblical stories maybe there isn't differences like it would take a lot of

conversation to figure this out but but what did you mean by that like what do you think that Christianity got right that would enable you to make a statement like that virtually nothing um I meant by that is no more than that I'm brought up in a Christian culture I

went to Christian Schools I therefore know my way around the Bible I know my my way around the book of common prayer I I know I know the hymns um that's all I I don't value Christianity as a truth system at all okay so let me let me ask

you about that because maybe that's true and perhaps it's not so the first question is like do you think that there are any marked differences between cultural Traditions that would enable you to rank order them in terms of their ethical validity okay so for example we

could contrast mainstream UK Christianity with Islamic fundamentalism Okay so so there's a hierarchy there is a hierarchy hierarchy that points to what uh well in the case of Islam uh I dislike any religion which punishes apostasy with death that throws gay

people off high buildings that practices clitoridectomy um that that seems to me to place Islam on a lower level than Christianity but that's not to say anything very positive about Christianity well it might it might be to say something positive about Christianity like I think that question

is open because you might ask yourself what did Christianity get right that led it away from those particular presumptions and towards something that you regard as more ethically appropriate like this isn't a trivial question it's a very modest claim uh it is not very

much I mean to to be better than a religion that throws gay people off high buildings is not really a very virtuous achievement I I don't know I don't know if that's true because if you look at the barbarism that characterizes the human past you might

think that any progression whatsoever towards something approximating mercy and tolerance is nothing short of a bloody miracle well people are pretty pretty ruthless and so are our chimpanzee cousins yes they are right so so we move forward into the light with great difficulty and the fact that we

can take that for granted now and that it seems self-evident and deserving of faint praise it's not so clear to me that that's that that's a reasonable proposition okay let's let's grant the the faint praise but that has nothing to

do with the truth value and what I care about is the truth value I see no no truth value in the claims of Christianity the Virgin birth the Resurrection the Miracles do you believe in any of those do you believe Jesus was born a virgin as I said before there are

elements of the text that I don't feel qualified to comment on my experience has been that the more like I know from a metaphorical perspective and from a mythic perspective what the story of the Virgin birth means and I accept that I know for example that any culture that

doesn't hold the image of the woman and infant sacred dies do you and I don't know how that needs to be expressed in a form true though do you mean that you don't know well let let me let me ask you about that because truth this is

something I talked with Sam Harris about too. Truth, as we know, is a tricky business. Do you think there are differences in the truth claims between different writers of fiction? Like, is Dostoevsky more profound than, well, I wouldn't call fiction truth claims anyway. I

mean, then on what grounds do we rank order the fiction in terms of quality? Like, Dostoevsky is a profound purveyor of fiction on the philosophical front, unbelievably deep and profound. There's something true about what he's writing about, it's it's nothing to do

with the truth that science is concerned with. The truth of science is the truth that gets us to the Moon. I mean, this has nothing to do with um whether one writer of fiction has a sort of insight into human nature that that goes without saying. I accept that, okay.

So how do we deal with the notion that on the on the purely factual side, how do we deal with the idea, let's take the no you you talked about clitoridectomy, let's talk about the oppression of women. Yes, we make a scientific case that

that's inappropriate, or is it a case that we're making on some other grounds? Like, I see in the Judeo-Christian tradition one of the earliest pronouncements is that both men and women carry the image of God, both, and that sets a certain tone to everything that

follows. And it is a remarkable proclamation given its radical age that both men and women are carry the carry the image of God and are to be treated as something with intrinsic value outside of the domain of power and politics. And it isn't obvious to me, it

It isn't obvious to me, having thought about this a lot, how we deal with that in the pure realm of fact because one of the facts is if I can oppress you, why the hell shouldn't I? Yeah, my job is to keep things on track here. I think there are a

number of questions which Professor Dawkins has asked quite directly that we still haven't really heard an answer for. Okay, okay. Professor Dawkins is asking about the Virgin birth. You started talking about metaphor. You started talking about myth. I think anybody listening to this conversation will

understand that maybe a society that doesn't believe in the Virgin birth won't work. Maybe that's the predictive power that you're talking about, but I, I think you must understand that when Professor Dawkins is asking you, do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin,

he means something like a biological fact. And, and by the way, saying I don't know or saying, you know, I'm not qualified to comment is an answer to that question, but is that your answer, that you, that you don't know? I said earlier, and, and I

I would hold to this, is that there are elements of the text that I don't know how to, that I'm incapable of fully accounting for. I can't account for, for what the, what the fundamental reality and significance of the notion of the Resurrection is. My, my knowledge just

ends. Sure, but I, I know that whatever happened, whatever happened as a consequence of the origination and the promotion of the Christian story was powerful enough to bring Rome to its knees and demolish the Pagan Enterprise. So there's some power in that story.

that's remarkable,  stick to the Virgin birth and well the Virgin birth results from a mistranslation of Isaiah you know that I'm  it's like these sorts of questions it's what would you say they don't they don't strike me as they're not getting to the point, has

a purpose well and look I understand that there's there's perfectly good reasons to debate this I I know that and I know that your question is more than valid but it's beside the issue as far as I'm concerned and and it's it's partly

because well when we started this conversation I said for example that it it appears to be the case that a description of the structure through which we see the world is a story we see the world through a story and so that's a remarkable thing that's

a remarkable discovery and it's emerged probably in the last 16 years 60 years in multiple disciplines because we have to prioritize our facts and so we prioritize them according to a particular pattern and there are patterns that seem to work and to

propagate themselves properly and to orient cultures towards life abundance and there are other patterns the pattern of Cain for example that lead to absolute bloody devastation and I don't know exactly how to construe that sort of truth but we talked about the oppression of women for example it's

like how do you make a case on purely factual grounds that women should be treated as equals it's a moral question and I know that's exactly I was dealing with a virtual question which is did Jesus have a father and and you won't answer it J

father and a Heavenly Father, like almost all mythological heroes, so he wasn't born of a virgin. Then, so, so you're saying that Jesus was not born of a virgin? I, I said first of all that I don't, I don't know how to mediate the

fact-value dichotomy in that case. I said the same thing about the resurrection. It's not a value, it's, it's a simple fact. I mean, did, did, did a man have intercourse with Mary and produce Jesus? That's, that's a factual question. It's not a Val

question. You must understand what we're being asked here, that, that even if you think that, say, the author of the biblical texts intended much more significance than a simple scientific analysis of events, Professor Dawkins is interested in scientific truth. That's the kind of truth that he's interested

in. And even if you think it's irrelevant to the point of what the, the gospel authors were getting at, that first needs to be clarified before you can then begin actually uncovering what the stories are about. So I think Professor Dawkins is asking from a scientific

perspective. And maybe you think that scientific approach is wrong, but if you just take it for a moment, maybe this is how we find out that it is wrong. Let's take a scientific approach, ask the question, did this occur? I think that it's inappropriate to use a question

like that to attempt to under undermine the validity of the entire, what would you say, deep mythological enterprise. We're not doing, suppose we were asking out of interest, suppose that we were all here devout Christians, maybe even Yian Christians, and we thought this is

Interesting, over dinner, do you think it really happened, like scientifically? Would your answer just be "I don't know"? Yes, and you wouldn't consider it... I mean, it's not an inappropriate question to ask, just on a point of interest, right? Did this really occur? And I think so.

Often people are asking you that, and and especially given the context of this conversation, we've we've heard everything that you're you're saying about metaphor and myth, and but because the question is still then being asked, "Did it really happen?" You know, that that's what you're being asked, and the

way you just so easily said "yes," I wonder why you struggle to do that in so many other circumstances. I think because I don't look at the situation the same, the the way that Dr. Dawkins and I look at the situation are really quite different, and at many many

many levels, you know. So even on the meme question, for example, you know, like I know the literature on the history of religious ideas. I see how these ideas have battled across millennia in a manner that is very reminiscent to me of the same sort of claim that Dr. Dawkins

is putting forward with regards to memes. I know that literature. Dr. Dawkins doesn't know that literature, and it's very difficult for me to communicate from within the confines of that literature because it's extensive and deep, and and we're dealing with things that we don't understand, the

relationship between metaphoric truth and value-predicated truth and factual truth. We don't understand that. It's a big problem. We cannot, there's no evidence whatsoever from the scientific perspective that we can orient ourselves in the world merely in consequence of the

fact sure and that's a fact and it's a fact that's been detailed out in great detail in the last 60 years by people from a variety of different disciplines we have to prioritize the facts that's a value hierarchy there may be true and

false ways of prioritizing facts but you can't determine the truth or falsehood of the way that you prioritize facts by making reference to the facts that's a big problem okay let's let's let's talk about that as perhaps a a slight detour

here because I think we do need to come back to this Chris Resurrection thing but Professor Dawkins would you say that underlying the scientific enterprise is a fundamentally unscientific assumption you can you can make scientific investigations in the world but in order to do so you need to

choose what to prioritize you need to choose what to investigate you also need to um value the truth you need to have a value and a motivation for doing it in the first place those kinds of things cannot themselves be scientifically justified and so does the scientif

scientific enterprise have an unscientific assumption at the space I suppose it does I mean I I I think we I think that maybe just be Jordan and Richard but by the way um um I think that Jordan prioritizes myth and I prioritize fact

and um I think myth is kind of vaguely interesting but is not the be all and end all of my life I think it's it's somewhat secondary to scientific fact the sort of facts that that tell us how old the universe is how old the world is um the

history of life the um engineering achievements of landing a spacecraft on a comet these are the things that science can do and as I said the predictions of quantum theory to come back to that but predictions of quantum theory which are verified to a

sufficient number of decimal places that it's equivalent to dating the width of North America to one hair's breadth now that is however difficult quantum theory is to understand that is what you can get from quantum theory now the the mysteries of the Bible if they are

mysteries aren't in the same league I mean they they just don't cut it [Music]

'Do You Believe Jesus Died for Our Sins?’ Richard Dawkins Confronts Jordan Peterson

The Poetry of Reality with Richard Dawkins

종교 텍스트에 대한 신앙과 이해에 대한 초기 토론.

화자는 종교적 텍스트를 이해하는 데 있어 한계를 인정하면서 예수가 죄를 위해 죽으셨다는 믿음을 표현합니다.

양자 현상의 복잡성에 대한 이전 인터뷰를 참조하세요.

양자 현상과 종교 텍스트의 이해 난이도 비교.

양자 물리학의 예측 능력과 성경 본문의 예측 능력의 부족을 대조해 보세요.

'문화적 기독교'의 개념을 소개합니다.

'문화적 기독교'에 대한 발표자의 이해에 대해 토론합니다.

연사는 기독교 문화에 대한 양육과 친숙함을 강조하면서 문화적 기독교에 대한 이해를 명확히 합니다.

발표자가 문화적 기독교인으로서 자신을 식별할 수 있는 기독교의 올바른 점에 대해 질문합니다.

발표자는 기독교를 진리의 가치가 없는 것으로 보는 자신의 견해를 설명합니다.

다양한 문화적 전통, 특히 영국 기독교와 이슬람 근본주의 사이의 윤리적 타당성을 비교합니다.

기독교 신앙의 진리 가치에 대해 토론하세요.

동정녀 탄생, 부활, 기적에 대한 발표자의 믿음에 대해 토론합니다.

발표자가 동정녀 탄생의 은유적, 신화적 의미에 대해 이야기합니다.

소설 속 진실 주장과 품질에 따른 소설의 순위를 비교합니다.

여성에 대한 억압과 남성과 여성의 동등한 하나님의 형상에 대한 유대-기독교 전통의 관점에 대해 토론합니다.

동정녀 탄생과 화자의 관점에 대한 추가 토론.

과학적 관점에서 동정녀 탄생에 관한 질문을 명확히 설명합니다.

화자가 텍스트의 요소를 완전히 설명할 수 없음을 반복해서 강조합니다.

이사야의 오역과 동정녀 탄생에 관한 질문의 관련성에 대해 토론합니다.

발표자는 해당 질문이 이슈와는 별개라는 견해를 설명합니다.

진실의 본질과 사실의 우선순위에 대한 토론.

이야기를 통해 세상을 바라보는 방식과 사실의 우선순위에 대해 토론합니다.

여성이 동등하게 대우받아야 한다는 순전히 사실에 근거한 주장을 펼치는 것이 얼마나 어려운지에 대해 논의합니다.

사실과 가치의 이분법과 예수의 아버지에 대한 질문에 대한 추가 토론.

예수 탄생에 대한 과학적 관점을 명확히 설명합니다.

진실에 대한 다양한 관점과 이해에 대한 마무리 발언.

발표자가 동정녀 탄생에 대한 질문에 직접 대답하기를 꺼리는 이유에 대해 토론합니다.

대화에 참여한 화자들의 다양한 관점을 설명합니다.

발표자는 다른 발표자에게 부족한 종교 사상의 역사에 대한 문헌 지식을 강조합니다.

사실에만 근거해 세상을 바라보는 과학적 증거가 부족하다는 논의가 있었습니다.

과학적 기업의 근간이 되는 비과학적 가정에 대해 토론합니다.

조사 대상의 우선순위를 정하고 진실을 중시해야 할 필요성 등 과학적 사업의 근간이 되는 비과학적 가정에 대한 토론이 이루어집니다.

발표자의 신화와 사실에 대한 우선순위 비교.

연사가 과학적 사실과 과학의 업적의 중요성을 강조합니다.

양자 이론의 예측 능력과 성경의 신비와의 대조를 반복해서 설명합니다.