So let me begin by saying that I entirely
appreciate why so many venerate and idolize
Jordan Peterson, as he’s obviously an intelligent
and insightful man, whose defence of free
speech and biological facts has been truly
admirable.
In fact, it’s precisely for these reasons
that he has my respect.
However, unlike many of his critics, who caveat
their criticisms by first making clear that
they’re very fond of the man, I won’t…
because I’m not.
To be blunt, while I recognize Peterson’s
intellect and charisma, I’m convinced that
he’s one of the most overrated public intellectuals
of our time, and that this is especially the
case when it comes to his views on religion.
In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jordan
Peterson is the Deepak Chopra of Christianity,
and within the following few videos I intend
to explain precisely why.
Of course, I’d prefer to address all of
his religious views in just one session, but
given my current situation I unfortunately
can’t justify doing this, but, as just indicted,
what I can justify is creating a series of
videos which each address a pillar of his
beliefs, and then later compile them all together.
And so, with that said, where better to begin
than with epistemology 101?
This, is Jordan Peterson’s Truth – Debunked.
On the 9th of November, 2015, in an interview
with Transliminal, Peterson had the following
to say on the topic of truth: "So, now, then
you have to ask yourself, well, how do you
determine whether or not a theory is true?
Then you ask yourself, well, what do you mean
by true?
Well then you're in trouble!
Okay, because, I think you can take a Newtonian
perspective on that, or a Darwinian perspective,
but you can't do both at the same time…”
Okay, so I’m going to interject quite a
lot within this video, but it’s only to
simplify and adequately address what’s being
said.
So far, Peterson has claimed that there’s
two perspectives on truth, the first is what
he calls Newtonian, which he later defines
as strictly materialistic “Truth as defined
by the axioms of materi… of the materialist
philosophy”, and the second is what he calls
Darwinian, which he later defines as that
which permits survival “sufficient truth
is the truth that allows you to survive and
reproduce, and from a Darwinian perspective,
there isn’t any truth past that”.
But there’s immediately several problems
here… and not the least of which is that
he’s committing a Black and White fallacy.
He’s falsely asserting that there’s only
two perspectives of truth, when in fact there’s
many more, including the most-subscribed to,
which is realism.
Realists, like me, and probably you, hold
that reality exists with or without our viewing
it – that is, that a falling tree makes
a sound with or without our being there to
hear it, but we don’t assert that reality
is strictly materialist.
And a second problem that’s worth emphasizing
at this point is that while Peterson’s definition
of truth can be seen as Darwinian, it does
not represent Darwin’s view, and so when
Peterson says or implies that it does “And
that’s basically Darwin’s claim”, know
that he’s putting words never spoken into
Darwin’s mouth.
Anyhow, here’s Peterson fleshing out his
perspective of truth (which, courtesy of Bret
Weinstein, is now known as ‘metaphorical
truth’).
"So Nietzsche said ‘truth serves life’,
okay, in some sense that’s a Darwinian idea
– okay?
If it’s true enough so that you act it out
or hold it, that increases your chances of
survival and reproduction over long spans
of time.
That’s true.”
And here’s him putting it more clearly to
Sam Harris while on Harris’ podcast: “The
fundamental axiom that I’m playing with
is something that was basically explained
by Nietzsche, and it’s a definition of truth
– and so I would say, if it doesn’t serve
life it’s not true.”
Now while this definition is needlessly confusing,
it’s not inherently flawed – if Peterson
and his ilk want to call that which serves
life (or that which increases human flourishing)
‘true’ then that’s fine… again, it’s
confusing, because it means, for example,
that if the fact that atoms store potential
energy should one day prove fatal to us, then
while this fact will remain true in the colloquial
/ realist sense of the word, it will all of
a sudden become false in the Peterson sense
of the word…
But what’s not fine, is to insist, as Peterson
does, that should a fact become false according
to the Peterson definition of truth then it
will also become false according to the realist
definition of truth.
Or in other words, that metaphorical truth
supersedes literal truth; “It sounds like
what you're saying is that truth is as much
about action as it is about some sort of material,
measurable, objective reality.
No I’m saying it’s more about action!
Oh yes, yes, the fundamentals of truth are
those that guide action, and then the objective
science is nested inside that, it has to be!
There’s no way around that!”
There's only one way you can define truth
in relationship to finite beings - it's true
enough.
True enough for what?
True enough so that you survive and reproduce.
That's it.
You don't get to go any further than that.
What's more true than that?
Sorry, can't ask that question.
That's it.
You’ve hit the limit – and that’s basically
Darwin’s claim.”
And to provide just one more example, here’s
him putting it another way, but this time
as a response to an excellent criticism from
Weinstein: “So my point was, essentially,
that there is something called metaphorical
truth and that it’s a real thing, so I was…
I’m in agreement with you on that, where
we might be in disagreement is that there’s
simultaneously a thing that I would call literal
truth, or scientific truth (and by the way
I’m not saying that what scientists say
is in this category inherently – scientists
can be wrong).
But the point is truth that is scientifically
verifiable, that makes predictions, has a
special priority in this hierarchy because
it is the one objective version.
It is not contingent on being nested in another…
series, of, of beliefs, so—” “What if
it’s a scientific truth that’s metaphorically
wrong?”
“Oh, and there are—” “Like, I can
give you an example.
Okay, so, I read this… the memoirs of a
KGB scientist, KGB agent, who worked with
the Russians in this erh… biochemical lab
and their job was to meld, erh, Ebola was
smallpox, cause smallpox is…
Ebola’s not that contagious, so that’s
kind of annoying if you’re trying to kill
people, whereas smallpox – but it’s really
fatal!
Whereas smallpox is really contagious, so
if you can get the two together and then develop
an aerosol spray you could kill a lot of people,
and in fact they did kill about 500 Russians
by mistake when some of what they were doing
escaped.
But it isn’t obvious to me that that’s
an invalid scientific pursuit… but I do
think that it’s an invalid ethical pursuit,
and so that seems to indicate that the ethical
pursuit supersedes the scientific pursuit
with regards to truth claim.”
Now just before I crackdown on Peterson’s
assertion, and in the anticipation of being
accused of not understanding his position,
I want to make something extremely clear.
I entirely understand and accept that our
perception of facts and reality (that is,
our perception of realist truth) is subject
to natural selection (or metaphorical truth),
and so if Peterson’s assertion was merely
that this fact prevents us from having access
to raw realist truth, then I’d have no objection,
but he’s not merely asserting this – he’s
asserting that scientific, objective, realist,
literal truth is outright the product of metaphorical,
Peterson truth: “The fundamentals of truth
are those that guide action, and then the
objective science is nested inside that […] The
ethical pursuit supersedes the scientific
pursuit with regards to truth claim.”
So, what exactly is wrong with Peterson’s
assertion?
Why doesn’t metaphorical truth supersede
literal truth?
Well, first and foremost: “It doesn’t
supersede with respect to the truth claim,
it supersedes with respect to considerations
of behaviour and policy.”
Secondly, though more importantly, it violates
the law of non-contradiction…
To borrow an example from Weinstein, the concepts
of heaven and reincarnation can both be considered
metaphorically true, because they both increase
our chances of survival due them encouraging
us to cooperate and behave… but the problem
is that they can’t both be true – they’re
mutually exclusive.
One claims that when we die we’ll rise up
to cloudsville to be reunited with our loved
ones, while the other claims we’ll manifest
a new body and start anew… or as Weinstein
puts it: What I’m arguing is that what makes
the scientific truth hierarchically superior
is that it explains all the subordinate truths
in a way that is logically consistent, whereas
if you were to prioritize heaven as a truth
then would have to say that well reincarnation
is false, or you would have to have them all
simultaneously be true in some irreconcilable
way, and so the only one that has the special
characteristic of accounting for all the others
is the scientific truth.
And thirdly, though perhaps even more importantly,
Peterson is conflating our perception of reality
with reality itself – the map with the place,
as it were.
Peterson is asserting that because our ability
to perceive facts and reality is nested in
Peterson truth, therefore facts and reality
is nested in Peterson truth… which is akin
to me asserting that because you're currently
perceiving me in two dimensions, I am two
dimensions…
Or to put it another way, Peterson is asserting
that because we can only perceive objective
facts subjectively, therefore there are no
objective facts… but that’s not how it
works, and it’s not what all of the evidence
indicates.
To quote Harris, “You clearly have to have
a conception of facts and truth that is possible
to know, that exceeds what anyone currently
knows, and exceeds any concern about whether
it is useful or compatible with your own survival
even, to know these truths.”
Anyhow, after explaining this to Peterson
over seven times, Harris, in fair frustration,
delivered the following elegant bombshell:
“Now, the claim, about whether or not she’s
cheating on you, is an intelligible claim
[…].That's a claim that has absolutely nothing
to do with whether or not you wind up killing
yourself based on your reaction to this unhappy
truth.
If you then end up killing yourself we could
say at the end of the day it would’ve been
better if he hadn’t known that; it certainly
would’ve been better if she hadn't done
that; it would’ve been better if he had
married a different woman – surely we would
want to say that--” “It might have been
better if he would’ve paid attention to
his damn marriage, and to attribute the—”
“Sure!”
“To attribute the cause of his demise to
the existence of the photographs... this is
why I brought up Josh Greene, is that investigations
into this kind of morality always frame it
in such a way--" “Jordan... Jordan, you
have to grant one thing here – there's one
piece that doesn't get moved here.
You cannot move the piece that because you
killed yourself it's not true that she was
having an affair – that move is not open
to you, and yet you're acting like it is!”
Now, in my opinion, this application of the
Reductio Ad Absurdum technique annihilates
Peterson’s assertion.
It’s simple.
If one was to commit suicide because their
partner was cheating on them, the act of suicide
wouldn’t make their partner’s cheating
on them untrue in the realist sense.
Sure, it would make it untrue in a Peterson
sense, but it wouldn’t in the realist – period.
If a tree falls and nobody hears it, it still
makes a sound… it still omits vibrations…
Now with Peterson’s definition of truth
thoroughly addressed, I want to ask a potent
question…
why does Peterson want to nest not only our
perception of realist truth, but realist truth
itself within Peterson truth?
Is it perhaps possible that he has a motive?
Well, I’m convinced that he does…
You see, this slight of hand comes in extremely
useful to apologists such as Peterson, because
when he’s asked a question to which he has
a justifiable answer, such as ‘Is it true
that there are only two sexes?’, he can,
and does, answer according to the realist
definition of truth, but when he’s asked
a question to which he doesn’t have a justifiable
answer, such as ‘Is it true that a literal
historical man called Jesus resurrected?’,
he answers according to the Peterson definition
of truth (which, considering his animosity
for postmodernism, is ironically postmodern).
To borrow a phrase from Harris, this is how
you play tennis without the net, and it’s
so disingenuous that I can’t help but conclude
that Peterson is doing it on purpose.
That he’s being deliberately obtuse in order
to preserve beliefs that he knows damn well
are false.
Now if you’re not already convinced of this
then perhaps the follow clip will change your
mind: “Quick question – are you a Christian?”
“I suppose the most straight-forward answer
to that is yes, although…
I think it’s, it’s… let’s leave it
at yes.”
“Well...
I'm a bit dissatisfied by that because there
are so many kinds of Christians and I-- I
would never imagine that you were a very literal
minded Christian."
“Well, there are truths other than the literal,
that are perhaps more truthful than the literal
truths.
There are many kinds of truth, and I don't
mean that in a...
I don't mean that in a post-modern way, actually.
But the truths that govern behavior and the
truths that emerge from facts are not the
same truths.”
“Do you believe Jesus rose again from the
dead…
literally?”
“I find it...
I cannot answer that question... and the reason
is because... okay, let me think about it...
and see if I can come up with a reasonable
answer to that.
Well, the 
first answer would be that it depends on what
you mean by Jesus.”
“A historical human being that existed--”
“In a body?
In a body?”
“Yes.”
“And it was a physical body and it was on
earth?”
“Yes.”
“It was on earth and was literally, um,
was literally, um, er, came back to life…
after death.”
“I would say that at the moment I'm agnostic
about that issue - which is a lot different
to saying I don't believe that it happened.”
You see, once someone corners Peterson by
forcing him to answer religious questions
according to the realist definition of truth
(that is, the definition that he uses in every
other domain of discourse), his religious
views are exposed for what they are… unjustified
nonsense.
It seems to me that the reason Peterson insists
on his definition of truth is because it renders
everything we confidently know – all facts,
all knowledge, as ultimately unknown, because
at any moment, however unlikely, they may
lead to our demise and thus become untrue
in the Peterson sense, and therefore, as he
insists, also untrue in the realist sense…
To put it bluntly, redefining ‘truth’
in order to avoid an inconvenient truth is
as dishonest as it gets.
Intelligent and sceptical people don’t accept
such utter nonsense from New Age Spirituality,
and so neither should they accept it from
New Age Christianity.
Peterson is no doubt a very smart, knowledgeable
and insightful person, but when it comes to
religion he’s no better than any other apologist.
He manipulates language, misrepresents philosophy
and science, and is fallacious in his reasoning.
This video alone doesn’t prove this outright,
of course, but it does make a good start,
and I’ll be sure to follow it up.
As always, thank you kindly for the view,
and an extra special thank you to my wonderful
patrons and those who’ve donated via PayPal.
Your support is what allows me to create videos
such as this.
Anyhow, I’m going to leave you another lucid
bombshell from Mr. Rationality himself: It
seems to me that a realistic conception of
what’s going on there, and really the only
sane one, if you look long enough at it, is
that our language didn’t put the energy
in the atom – it’s not because we spoke
a certain way about it, that that determined
the character of physical reality, no, physical
reality has a character whether or not there
are apes around to talk about it.
