Okay, going further with the conversation is Jordan Peterson a revolutionary. Let's examine the events that transpired in Dublin and London. These are the Jordan Peterson Sam Harris debates. Let's take a deeper look at these. Let's try and examine the subtext of what transpired. What actually occurred in these seven debates? I put it to you that this is probably one of the most important events in religious apologetics in the past decade. What was the subtext? What happened? Well, famous atheists, fire breathing atheists, radical fire breathing atheists, Sam Harris came ready to rumble, ready to further his assault, ready to persecute we the brethren, further his assault on religious traditions and Christianity in particular. And over series of I think seven hours, full frontal assault, one of the leading intellectuals of the atheist movement, one of the actual four horsemen came loaded for bear trying to bring down Christianity yet again, destroyed. What happened? Traditional religion held its ground over seven hours. Traditional religion held its ground easily, easily without a lot of melancholy and fanfare. Traditional religion didn't budge an inch. Why? Because Peterson has brought into conversation. Peterson's unique approach to traditional religious apologetics has brought into conversation to include things like narrative and mythology and the psychological utility of religion and the complexity of the phenomena of religion itself to include things in his defense of traditional religion. And by so including these things, he's actually strengthing the parameters of what we are defending, making it much much much much easier to defend. Like I said, traditional religion held its ground without a lot of melodrama, without a lot of fanfare. Easily over eight hours. And that whether you think Sam Harris has always cracked up to be or not, that is with our question one of the leading public intellectuals of the atheist movement. He is one of the four horsemen. And it was a full frontal assault and it was eight hours long. And if you listen to the tapes, you can listen three times straight. Traditional religion held its ground easily, easily. Jordan Sam Harris's main argument goes something along the lines of this. Actually, I think it goes exactly like this. Your charitable reading of Christianity, the same could be said for astrology. That is a sort of intellectually sophisticated way of saying religion is silly, superstitious nonsense, a la astrology. That's exactly what he's saying. And all of the anti-theists and the atheists in the audience who fancy themselves really, really profound intellectuals not in agreement go, aha, aha, but it isn't. That's the problem. It isn't. And really obviously not so. If you broaden the conversation to include the tools that Peterson is using, it's really easy to defend traditional religious, traditional religion as a complex pro-social phenomenon. So what happens? Peterson, in Peterson language, his defense of religion goes something like this. No, it's not silly, superstitious nonsense. That's simplistic. Now, I will try to paraphrase Peterson. His approach goes something like this. Religion is profoundly complex social narratives told by people to other people through the centuries, spoken into the collective unconscious. These narratives contain ethics, values, principles, and they produce profound sociological benefits, not the least of which are social cohesion and meaning in people's lives. They have helped the human race to survive. And this is true irrespective. This is the key. Irrespective of whether God exists or does not exist. That's the key. That's the key innovation. Because they answered, well, God doesn't exist. Well, that's not really what we're discussing. If God doesn't exist, that's not germane. You ask Peterson, Peterson, to Jesus Christ from the dead, he'll say, I'm not really sure. But what I do know is this. Again, really easy defensive religion because this is at least what religion is. Religion is tales, narratives, myths told by people to other people into the collective unconscious. These myths contain ethics, values, principles, ideals, morals. And they translate them from human being to human being down through the centuries, producing at least these positive benefits, social cohesion, meaning in people's lives. And, you know, big beautiful churches and cool songs and cool paintings. Now why is that such an easy way to defend religion? Because that's at least what religion is. It's God's own truth. That's exactly what religion is irrespective of whether God exists or does not. You take God out of the equation, say God doesn't exist. Then that's exactly what religion is. 100% what it is. Tales told into the collective unconscious. Tales that contain the morals and the values and the ethics of the people. And they translate those morals, values and ethics to the whole group of people, producing social cohes, producing at the very least profound social cohesion, meaning in other people's lives, enabling people to survive through difficult and chaotic circumstances, low through the centuries and prosper. That's at least what religion is. If there isn't a God, you can't take any of that away. Why? Because that's exactly what it is. So the defense becomes easy because all you are defending is the rock solid truth of what something is at the very least. That's revolutionary. That's why it seems like a revolution. That's why if you don't recognize it as a revolution, play it a few times. So that's all. Amen.