“Gotta wake up Labor Day to this (the fuck?)
Bein' rich-shamed by some prick usin' my name
for clickbait In a state of bliss.”
“Mr. Rules here, is a member of a group
here on YouTube, that as I’ve said in previous
videos, sees religion through this common
anti-religious narrative, popularised by famous
antitheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris,
Matt Dillahunty.
They have a belief system that assumes religion
is some kind of mind-virus; some kind of parasite
feeding of off society, turning what would
be rational, scientifically-minded people
into inept, superstitious losers.”
Adam Friended, otherwise known as Think Club
and Friended4Ever, is a content creator who
once spent a fair amount of his time misrepresenting
antitheists, but these days does the same
and adds dramatic clips and thumbnails of
Jordan Peterson (because, you know, Jordan
sells… and Adam doesn’t).
In fact, Think Club (which is by far his most
popular channel) is a Jordan Peterson Safe
Space.
“Ohhh!!!!”
“It’s a joke… tell your face…”
Now I actually want to begin by saying, with
all sincerity, two things; the first is that
if any of you believe that any of my critiques
of Jordan are unfair or erroneous, then please
don’t hesitate to let me and my audience
know.
Contrary to some of the comments on Adam’s
videos, I have never deleted a single comment
on my channel (not once… ever); and secondly,
know that this video isn’t a response to
Jordan (who, as I’ve said many times before,
I respect), nor is it a response to Jordan’s
fans (who, again, I respect) – it’s a
response to Adam Friended, who’s a self-professed
troll whose misleading legitimate Jordan Peterson
fans.
Now as of this date, Adam’s made three videos
in which he’s “DESTORYED” me (a so-called
Jordan Peterson HATER), and a fair few of
you have asked me to respond.
Well, you asketh, and now you reciveth: this
is a JORDAN PETERSON DESCIPLE – DESTROYED…
So let’s get straight into the thick of
it by watching the intro of Adam’s most
recent response to me, in which he accuses
me of post hoc reasoning.
“The only thing that’s wrong with religion
is the dogmatism.”
“You know, there’s a great quote from
Steven Weinberg – that being “With or
without religion, you would have good people
doing good things and bad people doing bad
things.
But if you want a good person to do bad thing,
that takes religion.”
“Hey everyone, I’m Adam and this is Think
Club.
I very much despise post-hoc reasoning.
Post-hoc reasoning is when you believe something,
say, that the world would be a better place
without religion, and then you proceed to
evaluate all evidence in a manner of ‘does
it prove this thing that I want to believe,
or does it disprove this thing I want to believe?’
And then you summarily dismiss everything
that disproves the thing that you so badly
want to believe and you elevate the evidence
that proves this thing.
Or even worst yet, you look at evidence that
could possible disprove what you want to believe,
but you twist that evidence around so it completely
proves what you want to believe.”
Now Adam gets to his actual criticism in just
a second, but I already need to correct him.
What he just described is not post hoc reasoning,
it’s confirmation bias.
Post hoc reasoning is actually a form of false
cause fallacy, and it occurs when someone
erroneously assumes that because one event
happened after another, the first event was
the cause of the second.
This is a side-note, of course, but it’s
absolutely worth correcting.
Anyhow, here’s Adam’s criticism: “Now
I have a clip here from Rationality Rules’
latest video where he is evaluating the first
debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris
in Vancouver.
And he throws out this bumper-sticker- this
antitheist bumper-sticker, as if he’s adding
some deep philosophical understanding to the
argument that Sam Harris is making, when all
he is doing is post hoc reasoning his way
to the conclusion that he wants to reach – that
religion is terrible; that religion turns
people into monsters; and without religion
people would just be great – they would
be totally amazing people!”
Did you catch that?
You know, the abysmal starwman of me?
I thought you would, and you’re not alone
– many people have, such as Bridges on Bikes,
who wrote “You strawman RR right off the
bat so poorly that your strawman “Without
religion people would just be great – they
would be totally amazing people!” is literally
refuted in THE FIRST SENTENCE of the quote
YOU DISPLAYED”… haha.
Indeed, there’s a reason that Weinberg said
“With OR without” Adam… it’s not like
he was, or I am, for that matter, so naive
as to think that that “Without religion
people would just be great – they would
be totally amazing people!”
Now funny enough, I actually anticipated someone
misrepresenting me (call it clairvoyance),
and so I deliberately included additional
words (words that, interestingly, Adam left
out): “You know, there’s a great quote
from Steven Weinberg – that being “With
or without religion, you would have good people
doing good things and bad people doing bad
things.
But if you want a good person to do bad thing,
that takes religion”, and I think that’s
pretty much what Sam was conveying here.
It’s an imperfect but very important point,
and it can’t just be hand-waved away.
All of know an otherwise wonderful person
who, because of religion, hates homosexuals,
don’t we?
Now there are plenty more assertions, conflations
and accusations within this video that I could
respond to, but as another commenter observed:
“[Adam] didn't really respond to anything
I said.
The clip of me he played near the start had
nothing to do with what he spoke about for
the rest of the video.”
He strawmaned me, and then burned it to the
ground with irrelevant, pretentious rhetoric,
numerous fake laughs (“Hahaha”), and a
lengthy quote from Jonathan Haidt.
Okay, with that buried, let’s move onto
another of Adam’s videos – this time his
first, in which he post hocs my criticism
of Jordan defining any and all action as “religious”
-- oh, sorry!
Not Post hocs, I mean strawmans.
*Laughing* “This is Everyone is Religious
– Debunked.”
“But not really… hahaha.
So I love how these people are totally triggered
by Jordan Peterson.”
So, to be clear, the crux of my criticism
was not that Jordan had created a new definition
of religion, rather, it was that he was equivocating
it with a colloquial definition in order to
evade legitimate criticisms of religion – and
to prove it, here’s me saying as much: “But
to be clear, let me repeat what I’ve said
in regards to Jordan redefining other words:
there’s nothing inherently wrong with him
creating a new definition, but what is wrong
is the way uses it.”
“So both of these arguments are flawed for
exactly the same reason: they either commit
an equivocation fallacy by using one definition
of their keyword during their first premise
and conclusion, and a completely made-up and
useless definition during their second premise,
and are thus invalid; or they use a nonsensical
definition throughout, which while valid,
in the context of their conversation, only
serves to confuse and obfuscate the underlining
question.”
Now I have to preface this, because Adam didn’t…
instead, he made out that my criticism was
simply that Jordan was using a non-colloquial
definition of religion, and he then brought
up Emile Durkheim’s definition of religion,
conflated it with Jordan’s (despite the
fact that the two are significantly different),
and concluded by attacking antitheism…
“And the reason he can say that everyone
is religious” “You can’t not be a believer
in your action.”
“Is because he’s made a new definition
of religion that somehow more vague than the
already useless ‘A pursuit or interest followed
with great devotion.”
“Says the guy who is pursuing the interest
of atheist activism with great devotion!”
“I just assumed that Jordan Peterson was
using the Durkheimian definition of religious
psychology.
Now maybe I’ve never had a problem with
this idea that Peterson puts form because,
you know, I’ve studied sociology and Dr.
Peterson’s definition of religious systems
as “What you act out” is so close to the
definition put forth by the father of modern
social-science (the French sociologist Emile
Durkheim) that I just assumed that this was
the definition that he was using.”
Now what I find to be extremely telling here,
is that despite the fact that I made crystal
clear that I have no problem with Jordan’s
definition in and of itself (“There’s
nothing inherently wrong with him creating
a new definition of “religion”, but what
is wrong is how he uses it”), Adam still
treated me as if I do…
And so, again, Adam didn’t address my criticism
at all.
Instead, he, again, strawmaned me, and then
burnt it to the ground with irrelevant, pretentious
rhetoric, numerous fake laughs (“Haha”)
and several misrepresentations of antitheism…
“So this idea that factual, scientific truth
is more valuable than inherited wisdom or
tradition, or what they would call dogma,
is the axiom that is at the base of the antitheist
belief system.”
You know, there’s a trend here, isn’t
there?
In fact, do you know what?
Let’s have some fun.
I’m going to Christen this the Adam Friended
Formula, and here’s how it works – step
1: find a video in which someone isn’t deep-throating
Jordan Peterson – step 2: quote-mine the
author (and, of course, be sure to discard
any references or examples that they give)
– step 3: find as relevant a clip from Jordan
or Jonathan Haidi as you can (and if you can’t,
don’t worry, just include one anyway); step
4: accuse the author of all of the disingenuous
tactics you’re currently employing (“I
very much despite post hoc reasoning”) – step
5: add obviously fake and pretentious laughs
(“Haha”) – and finally, step 6: make
sure that Jordan is in the thumbnail and that
he’s shooting lazars from his eyes!
Yeah, Adam, jokes aside, you should take some
advice from Jordan, and try steelmaning your
opponents… you seriously need to clean your
room, bucko.
“See, one of the things that Carl Rodgers
said (the psychologist) was that one of…
a good way to have a discussion with someone
is to tell them what you think they think
until they think that what you said reflects
what they said.”
And finally, let’s move onto Adam’s third
video – in which he accuses me of deliberately
misrepresenting Jordan’s definition of truth.
“If you understand Jordan Peterson’s arguments,
you know immediately that these statements
are false – that he’s misrepresenting
Jordan Peterson’s idea of truth.”
“Peterson is asserting that because we can
only perceive objective facts subjectively,
there are no objective facts.
But that’s not how it works, and it’s
not what all of the evidence indicates.”
“So, this is very far from what Jordan Peterson
is asserting.
Jordan Peterson is asserting that there are
infinite number of facts, and that those facts
need to be hierachially ordered, and we do
this all the time.
If we are against a particular political position,
we order the facts that support our position
above the facts that disconfirm out position.
It’s the exact same thing that Rationality
Rules is doing in this video.”
“Jordan Peterson believes in objective facts.
Jordan Peterson is a science (reality alert!)
Jordan Peterson was a professor at Harvard,
okay?
He believes in facts!
This assertion that Rationality Rules makes
is bonkers! Jordan Peterson believes in objective
facts – he says that the way you order those
objective facts is subjective… which, news
flash, it is!”
Now to fair, in my original video, I should’ve
explained that by saying “Peterson is asserting
that because we can only perceive objective
facts subjectively, there are no objective
facts”, what I was driving at is that by
asserting that scientific, realist truth is
nested within, subordinate to, or contingent
upon, Darwinian truth, Jordan is, by extension,
necessarily asserting that literal truth does
not exist without Darwinian truth (since he
insists that literal truth is entirely predicated
upon Darwinian truth) – and so, what I’m
saying here is that I’m largely responsible
for this confusion – sorry.
However, with this said, Jordan did assert
that his Darwinian truth supersedes literal
truth in regards to truth claim (not just
that it supersedes in regards to what we should
care about), and I gave ample examples in
my video (all of which, by the way, didn’t
make it into Adam’s response)… and so,
for what it’s worth, here’s a few of them,
and few extra for because… why not?
“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.”
“If somebody writes down a hundred digit
number in front of you, and it ends in a one,
and they say 'This number is prime, and what
is more it's the largest prime number any
human being has ever consciously beheld',
right?
That is either true or false, and its truth
or falsity has absolutely nothing to do with
the ultimate survival of the species- or your
personal wellbeing.”
“I know, that's what you think.
I understand that, perfectly well, but I don't
agree, hahaha.”
“But your non-agreement hasn’t--" “I
would say it’s sufficiently true for all
likely contexts that are to arise in the next
while.”
“The claim I'm making is that scientific
truth is nested inside moral truth, and moral
truth is the final adjudicator, and your claim
is no, moral truth is nested in scientific
truth, and scientific truth is the final adjudicator.”
And for a cherry on top, here’s just one
more example: “I think you’re simply deciding,
at the end of the day, to say that any truths
that led us down a path where we suffered
unnecessarily, or died, weren’t true…”
“Right!
You have to choose what you mean by true!
You have to- and I’m not accepting the same
definition of truth that you operate under,
and it’s partly because I believe Darwin
trumps realism, let’s say- I believe that
pragmatism trumps realism.”
You see, when Jordan says “I’m not accepting
the same definition of truth that you operate
under”, and then declares that “I believe
that pragmatism trumps realism”, he is not
merely saying that “The way you order those
objective facts is subjective.”
As already said, realism is the position that
facts exist independent of our perception
(it’s got nothing to do with how we order
facts), while pragmatism (or in this case
more accurately, Jordan’s Darwinian Truth)
is the position that “if it doesn’t serve
life, it’s not true.”
And so, I wasn’t contending the assertion
that “the way you order those objective
facts is subjective”, I was contenting the
assertion that “pragmatism trumps realism”.
My central thrust was simply that Peterson
truth “Doesn’t supersede with respect
to the truth claim, it supersedes with respect
to considerations of behaviour and policy.”
I’ll say that again – my central thrust
was simply that Peterson truth “Doesn’t
supersede with respect to the truth claim,
it supersedes with respect to considerations
of behaviour and policy.”
Now I grant that this topic is confusing,
and that I should’ve done a better job of
expressing my objection, but Adam really didn’t
address my concern at all.
Instead, he applied the Adam Friended Formula,
but this time quote-mined Jordan as to strengthen
his actual position.
To conclude, I’m more than happy engage
with critics of my content (time permitted,
of course), but Adam does not strike me as
earnest – he strikes me as a troll.
He’s misrepresented countless people (especially
antitheists), conflated their views with nonsense,
and worst of all, he’s provided sincere
Jordan Peterson fans with pig shit for ammunition.
“I am here because I am interested in these
arguments.
I’m genuinely interested in what Jordan
Peterson has to say, and I’m curious if
he’s right about his argument.”
I’m honestly not convinced, Adam.
“Our order does not deal with pig shit!”
Anyhow, I’m Steve Woodford, or Rationality
Rules, and as always, thank you kindly for
the view, and an extra special thank you to
my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve
donated via PayPal.
