Well, here's Peterson's next claim, his next prompt, and not surprisingly, science enters the picture.

My next claim is that morality and purpose cannot be found within science.

This is familiar territory bill, and as the discussion continues, it becomes obvious that

Dr. Peterson pretty much concurs with your view on the limits and the domain of science and so on.

Yes, this is one of those claims that is just obviously true and could only be disputed by someone who didn't

understand it. Science is an exploration of the natural world and does not speak to the issues

of ethics. It does not tell us what is right or wrong, what is good or evil.

It is morally neutral, just as mathematics is morally neutral and doesn't speak to ethical

issues.

And certainly, science doesn't tell us whether there is, for example, a purpose to the evolutionary process on Earth, that it's aimed at something.

So this is one of those claims that for anybody who understands science and ethics is obviously true.

Science and morality continues with this next debater.

Here's the clip.

Morality is actually something that we do see.

We actually have examples of Neanderthals,

an older individual was found in a tribe,

missing an arm, missing teeth, still alive,

somehow in just 40s, 50s, right?

Typically, you're in Neanderthal, you can't eat, you can't hunt, you die.

But we know the members of the tribe are taking care of him, right?

So we know that at some level, early in our evolutionary history, we actually developed altruism,

but we have similar examples where we do animal tests, right?

...