But Did It "Really" Happen? | Alex O'Connor

This is one of the things that I find puzzling, for example, about Dawkins. Because Dawkins formulated the idea of meme, which is, by the way, the same idea as archetype. It's exactly the same idea, except he just stopped. It's like, okay, there are memes; they're selected for. Okay, selected on what basis? Exactly, does that mean there's a hierarchy of memes? Are the memes more likely to be what, would you say, viable organisms? And if they're viable organisms, are they microcosms? This is really interesting in terms of survivability.

Because there's a point—I’ve spoken to Richard Dawkins a number of times, but twice on my podcast. The second time, somebody pointed out to me that there might be a point of agreement between you two that has been overlooked. Which is that, I don't know if you've ever come across the evolutionary argument against naturalism or the argument from reason. The idea that if you're a materialist, you can't trust your reasonable faculties.

So, Alvin Plantinga formulated this very well, very geniusly, I think, in saying that if you believe that evolution by natural selection happens materially, what does natural selection select for? Survivability. So if you're a materialist, that means that the very rational faculty that you're using right now evolves not to be sensitive to truth but to survivability. Yes, that's right. And if that's the case, well, definitely, why do you believe in the truth of evolution?

Well, because you've been rationally convinced of it. But the thing that you've just assented to, the belief itself, has just undercut the process by which you... There's a whole—the New England pragmatists figured this out in like 1880. Now, I think this is fascinating. I think it really is just—it's exciting. It's—no, that's for sure. That's for sure.

It's actually a point where Darwin and Newton do not come together. How do you mean? Well, the Darwinian definition of truth and the Newtonian definition. Not so. Here's the thing. You had a conversation with Sam Harris. You've had a number, but one of them—I don't think it was a live event. I think it was before that. You're talking about truth.

Yeah, and awkward. The first second talk I had with him, I was extremely ill. You know, it was awkward to listen to because it felt very much like—and I remember at the time thinking, you know, what is this, this Jordan Peterson talking about? Like truth is like Darwinian—truth is about like survivability. What do you mean truth is true? True the way an arrow flies?

Yeah, right. And now I asked Richard Dawkins about the evolutionary argument against naturalism. I said, well, how can you know that what you believe is true? And he said, because believing true things makes me more likely to survive. Hey, hey boy, watch where you go with that. I didn't catch it at the time, but I thought to myself afterwards—it was one of my commenters on Patreon, actually, had mentioned this. He was listening to Rich, and I said, but you know, but okay, maybe, but sometimes, it's at least possible that something that's false helps you to survive.

You know, the rustling in the bushes—believing that that's a lion every time or a tiger, even if it's not—that helps you to survive. Because that one time that it is, you're still going to run away, and it costs you nothing to run away when it's not a tiger. So believing it's a tiger, even when it's not, it's going to help you. That's why we have a negativity bias.

Yeah, and DW says, well, yeah, of course, there are some circumstances where believing something false could be beneficial to survival. And I said, well, how do you know that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is not one of those? And it seemed as though he was just saying that believing that would not be advantageous to our survival, which might well be true.

But if that's the case, then suddenly, I'm listening to what you're saying about truth being more sort of Darwinian related to survivability, and I think maybe you two would agree there. And I think, well, why is it that when you sit down with Richard Dawkins, you find it difficult to have a conversation with each other? And well, I think it's partly because we don't know each other very well.

That's—and also, there are things he knows that I don't know, and there are things I know that he doesn't know. Now, I would say in my defense that I—what would you say? I'm more aware of the things he knows that I don't know than he is of the things I know that he doesn't know. Right?

So for example, as far as I can tell, Dawkins doesn't know anything about the Yiann tradition of literary interpretation. And that actually, if you're going to talk about religion, that's actually a fatal flaw. Right? So, and you know, he's called me, for example, drunk on symbols. It's like, well, the imagination is a biological function, and it has a structure and a purpose, and it has its own logos, its own intelligence. And if you're not aware that you're drunk on symbols, it just means you don't know what you're talking.

So that frustration that you appeal to there when you hear Richard Dawkins, I think Terry Eagleton said that listening to Dawkins on theology is like listening to somebody who writes a book about biology whose only knowledge of the subject is having once read the Great British Book of Birds. And okay, fair enough that, but that actually turns out to be a real problem.

It's a problem with regards even to the meme idea because you don't have to extend Dawkins's work very far to understand that religious stories are memes. Sure, right? Yeah, well, and there's a hierarchy of memes, and some of them are very functional. But then here's the thing, like that frustration that you're sort of throwing in that direction—I think people throw towards you when you say, well, religion, you don't have to look very far to see that religion is a meme.

Well, without further clarification, and of course, it's going to be, you can understand why to somebody first listening, that sounds almost atheistic. Or religion is a meme? No, religion is not—religion is not a true historical account of, you know, the history of the universe. It's not a true historical account. It's a meme.

Now, when you say that—the resurrection of Jesus—well, what does it mean historically that the spirit of God brooded upon the primordial waters? Like, what does that mean historically? No one knows. I don't think that at least most of Genesis—parts of Genesis are supposed to be—I mean, the Bible is a library, right? It's not a book, and that means that it's going to contain different genres, that's for sure.

And some of them are more historically accurate, and some of them tilt more towards that kind of elusive—I don't mean elusive in the—I mean, allusive. Sure, right? That elusive and symbolic form that characterizes Genesis one.

So because there are different genres here, it depends on what story we're talking about. And I think what I often observe you doing is we might talk about Christianity, and if you aren't comfortable committing to a historical ideal, you'll start talking about the spirit moving over the face of the waters, which is obviously a much more mythological ideal.

And not quite equivocating them but moving between them too quickly and not delineating them enough. So if I asked you, you know, do you think that the spirit moved across the face of the waters? And you said to me something like, I think it's still happening, right? That is what I would say.

Say, hey, fair enough, yeah, that makes sense. It always happens. It happened at the beginning of time, and it's always happening. When somebody says, did the Exodus story happen? Did the Jews enslaved in Egypt break free of their slavery and move to the promised land across the desert for 40 years? Did that happen?

MH, you have also said of the Exodus specifically, it's still happening. Yes, now to me, that's far more inappropriate than saying that the spirit is still moving across the face of the waters. Because I think what people mean there is, do you believe that these people in that time period actually did this in such a way that, for instance, might show up in an archaeological report?

Well, I think that's the simplest answer to that is probably sure. And that's fine too. But then, but we don't know. I mean, there—like to the degree that there's been archaeological investigations into the kinds of biblical narratives that you've described, the archaeological evidence tends to line up on the side of historical accuracy in relationship to the Bible. Quite surprisingly.

Clearly, you—you spent more time in Exodus than probably any person I've ever met in person, right? Clearly, the story sort of captivates you, and you think it's really important, and can—of course, it's an infinitely deep story. I think most people speaking to you already know that you think that, right?

And so when they ask you a question, when they suddenly say to you, but do you think it really happened? Well, what the hell does that mean? You must know that what they mean is what I was talking about a second ago, which is that sort of, um, okay, so fine. So it's easy just to turn this around. It's like, okay, what exactly happened in your historical account when Moses encountered the burning bush?

I don’t need to know exactly what happened. What I need to know is, I'm not asking you specifically or attacking you for that. What I need to know is that if I sort of went to the Egyptian desert at sort of the time that the story is alleged to have taken place in history, would I see a mass movement of Israelites from Egypt into the promised land? Would I see people with feet walking through the desert, leaving footprints?

Well, let's take it apart rationally. So, and you also understand that when someone's asking that—and you like—even if you don't like the question, you must understand what someone's asking. Yes, well, I understand many of the things that they're doing simultaneously. You must also understand that when you then say, it's still happening, yeah, people just go, what are you talking about?

Yeah, well, I would say that's not my problem. But it's—it's—it becomes a problem when you understand that someone's asking a quite banal historical question. Yeah, but you don't get to do that. But why not? Because the stories that you're dealing with aren't banal.

I agree, but like, uh, one—so you can't reduce them to something. Even if it's—what would you call it? Even if it's reassuring, this actually happened. It's well—then what do you do with the burning bush? It's actually happened. One comparison I would make is between this and talking about fiction more broadly.

Yeah, right? Well, you got it right earlier. You know, I would say you noted that the stories in the biblical library leap across genres, yes, right? Well, we know this because sometimes they're poetry, and sometimes song.

Yeah, exactly. And so in any given story, there's going to be a historical account plus mythological overlay, and you know, you have to be a discriminating reader to kind of see what's different. And you don't just get to say, well, all the mythological symbolism is historical reality. It's like, no, it's not.

But here's the thing, for example. So like take a piece of trivial fiction, like Forest Gump, right? We say, like, okay, did that happen? Now, I think that what you probably say is something like, well, I don't think the events literally occurred, but I think that they obviously get at something that's sort of perennially true about human nature.

Then suppose I said they happened, too—they existed as a pattern. But there's a scene in Forest Gump when, you know, he—I think he meets the president. Is it JFK at the time? I think he goes and meets John F. Kennedy.

Yeah. And so I said to you, well, is JFK the—like, that specific part of that story—is it true that JFK was the president? Right? And you would probably just say, yeah, yeah. You wouldn't say anything more complicated. And even though the subject as a whole of like, is Forest Gump true? Is Hamlet true? That's a complicated question.

Very! But specifically, when I say, ah, but interestingly, there's this—there's this little point I want to make in this discussion. Do you think that JFK was actually the president? You would say yes.

Why do you think it matters to people? Like, I don't know. These are ancient accounts. Maybe that's the biggest problem. Maybe that's the biggest problem that you have with people who are asking these questions. It is—why? Why—what point are you trying to make here?

So the point is, I know what the point usually is, is the people who are asking the question believe that true, in an unerring sense, means objectively happened in history. Like the things that we're seeing right now. Now happen—it's like, well, no, that's not how that's—that's not what those stories are like for me. Some of it is!

But for a Christian, when asking you that, it's probably because for them, they have an understanding of Christianity that requires believing in that kind of Truth. For me, yeah, I know that. And the reason why I hope that, like, me asking these questions will be less frustrating to you is because I have no desire for that. I don't care about that.

I'm genuinely just interested in what you think. And so my desire to know whether you think Exodus historically happened goes no further than a point of interest about your beliefs. Well, so there's elements of especially the setup to the Exodus story that strike me as very, very plausible historically.

So for example, the Jews before the Pharaoh of that time were under the guidance and protection of Joseph and the previous Pharaoh, and they regarded the Israelites as benefactors because they had—Joseph had helped save the Kingdom, and his people were welcome. But that was forgotten, and so the new Pharaoh and the new Egyptians regard the appallingly successful Jews as destructive interlopers, and they make them slaves.

It's like, well, can you believe that? Well, it happens all the time. It's happening right now. It's very—in this particular case saying it's very plausible—saying something like, well, yeah, it could have happened, I don't know. Well, I don’t know. I don’t think anybody knows.

So when someone asks, did the Exodus really happen—that word "really," when they say, if I just really is the—if I said, did the Exodus happen? And I’d understand why you would then say, well, you've got to understand what kind of story this is. Fine, then if somebody says, yeah, but did it really happen?

Which parts of it? Even if they're not expressing it very well, like what they’re getting at there is they're trying to emphasize the historicity—they're trying to say, yeah, but did it historically happen? Probably is what they mean by the word "really" there, right?

But the thing is it speaks of their—see, they have a—the problem is, is that Christians who ask that have a metaphysics that's not Christian. MH [Music]