I stumbled onto this from a YouTube search typo and was gripped by the interview.
What a fantastic discussion to come across. Thank you.

Love the vidéo. By the way of you can can you made a video explaining your modal Panentheism in more detail. Im a fan. Love from France

Can you please debate NotSoErudite?
You two are my favourite debaters. I'm vegan myself so I will be on your side on this, but I find NotSoErudite incredibly articulate, and I think a debate between the two of you on veganism would be fascinating to watch

We are “constantly dependent on Grace & Mercy,”

Me and my wife actually went plant based together around 7-8 weeks ago. Since then Ive deep dived in veganism. My trigger was to drop my cholesterol as a 32 fit male my numbers were tremendously high, this bought me in to this space in ways to reduce it. As your jubilee debate claims that  we should to ‘aim’ to be vegan. Ive since listened to you and Simon Hill an awful lot due his nutritional analysis of the benefits speaking with experts of dietics. Around 12 weeks ago I wouldn’t have even considered going plant based now we are all in :). I think  conversation with you and Simon Hill would be excellent as it will hold a very strong case to go plant based for health and ethics could be a great dance of conversation and inspire many.

Excited to see more youtube from Jack!

"I'm not a great fan of these hypoticals". Gee I wonder why.

former archbishop of canterbury

First!

Jordan Peterson has certainly got a good mass of Christendom thinking he's the 'New Paul'. His 'what do you mean by god?' phrase now standard deflection.

There's a diffidence to Williams - there's no energy or clarity to his thoughts. His defense of human exceptionalism and our supposedly god-given superiority to animals is feeble: "The fact we can think things through, can interrogate and develop our moral perceptions ... allows us to imagine our way into the life of the non-human world to receive from it in certain ways to let that life enrich us in certain ways. And I don't just mean by providing Sunday lunch..."
Such a disappointing man.

bro is rocking the devil horn eyebrows. interesting isn't it

nationalism is a cancer straight up. it does not make any sense.

This is perhaps my least favourite of your interviews. I'm increasingly a fan of yours Jack, but there seems to be an element of respect and almost deference here which I would say impacts your duty as the interviewer to not let things go unchallenged. The idea that we should base our ethics or laws on those of the Bible, should have been immediately contested. While you can cherry pick verses from the new testament, there is also unequivocal support for genocide, homophobia, enslavement, killing of animals, and sexism, just to scratch the surface. We reject these now, not because of an absolute morality based on scripture, but because our secular ethics have evolved over time through intelligent design. The former head of an organisation that has repeatedly and systematically throughout the world proven culpable of the grooming and rape of children, as well as blatant attempts to deny and covered up the crimes further exacerbating the horrors experienced by the victims, does not get to talk unchallenged about ethics. Sure, Rowan Williams seems like a perfectly nice individual, but what his former position represents is something which is philosophically abhorrent, and practically reprehensible. The only miracle here is the religious sleight of hand that has allowed them to be perceieved by so many, as the seat of ethics! The world is truly upside down. His statement on assisted dying should also have been challenged: "I don't think the proponents of this are wanting to murder people" (yes of course they're not, but repeating such a mischaracterisation gives the semblance of balance, which it is not and you have not earned), and "I don't think the propopents of the status quo are actively in favour of prolonging suffering" - yes, that's exactly what they ARE in favour of. Those supporting assisted dying do so for ONLY those who are suffering, and to oppose them, especially based on ancient myths, only prolongs their suffering. The bible has nothing of interest to say on ethics, because everything that happens to be in line with our current values is not unique to religion, but many abhorrent things said about ethics, come purely from the religious. On hearing a voice in his head, Abraham yields a knife in preparation to murder his son, only stayed by the merciful voice in his head, and we see this as a measure of devotion? Not psychopathy? Lot offering his daughters to be raped by angels, and this is a book of ethics? Come on, these people really have no standing when it comes to ethics.  I really like your content Jack, and hold you as the key source for my gradual conversion to vegansim, but it's important to maintain your analytical acumen when your guests are Peter Hitchens, who you comically destroyed, and just as much, perhaps more so, when they are Rowan Williams, who you gave a clear pass to; apart from his 'I don't like these hypotheticals' when he was the one who presented the hypothetical you were talking about - that made me laugh! I'm also quite surprised you didn't push him more on veganism. How can someone who comes from an organisation that purports to be an authority on ethics support anything other than veganism? How can someone who see's all living things as 'God's creatures', be in favour of their painful and systematic tortuous treatment and being bred for slaughter - his only concession being to use the stun gun first! I would have liked to have seen him account for this. But are we seriously entertaining the idea that THIS is where we should be getting ethical guidance from?

The US has no responsibilty to protect Ukraine. But it is the cost being a world leader.

God gave us dominion over animals to feed our populations

Veganism would cause massive starvation and depopulation

There is no possibility of feeding 8.4 billion people worldwide without animal agriculture..