A continuation of the Jordan Peterson vs Sam Harris debate via vicarious ideological representatives within the noosphere of ideas.
Two years ago, Sam Harris seemed to be trying to get Jordan Peterson to admit that religious ideas in general are more harmful than beneficial, while Jordan Peterson took the opposite angle that there are important ideas that evolved with us that are encapsulated within religion that should not be discarded carelessly. Sam didn't seem to respect or fully appreciate the evolutionary significance of books of wisdom like the Bible, while Jordan appeared overly committed (perhaps because of dogmatic bias) to accepting each line of the Bible rather than allowing for human error or temporal/situation-specific adaption in the evolution of wisdom.
Two years later, Stephen Woodford, representing the atheistic Sam Harris perspective, seems to have to come to terms with Jordan Peterson's core argument that there might be good things nested within religion that we shouldn't carelessly discard, yet Jonathan Pageau, representing the Christian or Jordan Peterson side of things, seems to be struggling to accept the other side's position that there are also harmful teachings within the texts that need to be discarded. Jonathan Pageau seems to have a bias that religion that supposedly grew out of evolutionary psychology is not purely random (and therefore subject to error), but is rather based on a heavenly pattern of being, of which a heavenly motivation is guiding the path of evolution. Therefore the religions that grow out of it would be heavenly and not subject to error. The debate ends before this idea can be challenged by the evidence of a multiplicity of religions, of which there seems to be an array of different features and bugs and are not coalescing around some higher moral organizing precept.
Jonathan Pageau vs. Stephen Woodford | Metaphorical Truth - YouTube