Christopher Hitchens, one of the so-called "New Atheists", lost his battle against cancer. He died at 62.
Hitchens said, even after his disease, that he didn't believe in the afterlife. But if the afterlife exists (as I think it does), then I think that by now he could have changed his opinion.
Hitchens was a seasoned polemicist and a harsh critic of religions. But in my opinion, he wasn't a sophisticated thinker. Just watch his performance in his debate with William Lane Craig in 2009 (in which Hitchens was badly beaten):
Readers of my blog may consider that it is weird for me to recommend a book defending naturalistic atheism. And it seems to be more weird when the book in question is not available yet (it is available for pre-order in Amazon.com).
However, I don't recommend this book because I think that naturalistic atheism is true (on the contrary, I think it's clearly false). I recommend this book for other reasons:
1-The author, Alex Rosenberg, is a prominent philosopher of science and philosopher of biology (whose works on these fields are a must read).
2-In contrast to other naturalist philosophers, Alex Rosenberg is an INTELLECTUALLY honest metaphysical naturalist.
3-Consequence of point 2 is that he openly concedes the actual and true implications of the basic premises of metaphysical naturalism. Therefore, he is not afraid of defending nihilism, the non-existence of objective moral values, the non-existence of beliefs (at least, of beliefs in the propositional and intentional sense as they are usually understood) and other (obviously false, in my opinion) doctrines that are implicit in the metaphysical naturalist's basic ontological premises (like determinism, the causal closure of the physical universe, the commitment to physicalism, the non-teleological and largely random process of Darwinian evolution, the ontological dependence of consciousness on the brain, the non-efficacious of consciousness, etc.).
Reading carefully the naturalistic literature is a frustrating experience, since in general naturalists asserts a bunch of ontological premises but (due to intellectual dishonesty or lack of logical rigour) they try to avoid the devastating implications of atheistic naturalism for concepts like moral values, moral responsability, freedom, self, normativity, life's purposes and so forth. Many naturalists actually see and draw these implications, but other (the dishonest and charlatans) employ a bunch of verbal sleight-of-hand, logical fallacies and misdirections in order to avoid the actual implications of naturalism. Reading people like that feels like a Myke Tyson's punch on the face, and the only thought that passes on my mind is "Shame on them!".
This is not the case of Rosenberg's book. At least, jugding from the product description in Amazon, we can know that "We can't avoid the persistent questions about the meaning of life-and the nature of reality. Philosopher Alex Rosenberg maintains that science is the only thing that can really answer them—all of them. His bracing and ultimately upbeat book takes physics seriously as the complete description of reality and accepts all its consequences. He shows how physics makes Darwinian natural selection the only way life can emerge, and how that deprives nature of purpose, and human action of meaning, while it exposes conscious illusions such as free will and the self. The science that makes us nonbelievers provides the insight into the real difference between right and wrong, the nature of the mind, even the direction of human history. The Atheist's Guide to Reality draws powerful implications for the ethical and political issues that roil contemporary life. The result is nice nihilism, a surprisingly sanguine perspective atheists can happily embrace." (emphasis in blued added).
For years, critics of naturalism (like me) have pointed out that IF naturalism is true, THEN several versions of ontological and epistemic nihilism, the subjetivity and relativity of morality, the meaningless of life, etc. follow as necessary (or highly plausible) corollaries. In my opinion, these conclusions are irrefutable.
However, some naturalistic charlatans, more interested in winning the argument than in being logically consistent in the search for the truth, just deny these conclusions (in part for the sake of contradicting critics and in part because they want to believe that such devastating conclusions are false).
I hope Rosenberg's book, which is supposed to be a rigorous philosophical defense of precisely the same points made by many critics of naturalism regarding the latter's implications, will bring honesty and clearity in discussions about metaphysical naturalism.
I look forward to read Rosenberg's book and, probably, I'll review it in my blog.
If you're a naturalist, theist, pantheist, agnostic or whatever, don't miss the chance to understand what contemporary scientific atheism (= metaphysical naturalism) actually is and entails from the hands of one of its most sophisticated, erudite, competent, honest, logically coherent and best defenders.
In a previous post, I argued how an atheist philosopher (Michael Martin) intentionally misrepresented the cosmological argument for God's existence, in a debate with a Christian apologist.
These kind of atheistic misdirections and fallacies are very common, and this is exactly what we'd expect if atheism is false. Given that metaphysical naturalism (the foundation of contemporary atheism) is not based on true premises, it cannot refute the best counterarguments except through a consistent misrepresentation of them (and of other contrary evidence). It's mostly grounded on myths and fallacies, which are perpetuated in order to avoid that the believers in naturalism learn and correctly interpret the actual refutations of naturalism. (All the ideologies have that kind of self-protective mechanism in order to survive among their hard-core followers)
In my previous post, I argued that atheist/naturalist ideologues consistently present the statement "Everything has a cause" as the basic premise of the traditional cosmological argument for God's existence. Having misrepresented the actual argument, they commonly proceed to refute such argument arguing "If everyting has a cause, then God has a cause too. Therefore, it's impossible that God be the first uncaused cause, so the cosmological argument is self-refuting"
Obviously, an atheist ideologue arguing like that simply cannot understand the fact that no one of the best philosophical theists defending the cosmological argument has ever defended it on the grounds of the "everything has a cause" premise. Despite of this fact, atheist ideologues continue to use such fallacy. This is evidence that the cognitive faculties of these people don't function properly or that they're intentionally dishonest (or both things)
To use another factual example of how an atheist philosopher commits such fallacy, please read this article by atheist and naturalist philosopher Theodore Schick Jr., published in the leading website of the internet materialistic and naturalistic believers, Infidels.org.
In that article, Schick Jr. comments that "The traditional first-cause argument rests on the assumption that everything has a cause. Since nothing can cause itself, and since the string of causes can't be infinitely long, there must be a first cause, namely, god. This argument received its classic formulation at the bands of the great Roman Catholic philosopher, Thomas Aquinas "(Emphasis in blue added)
But this is simply, radically, factually and demostrably false. As has commented philosopher Edward Feser: "In fact, not oneof the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everythinghasa cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended" (emphasis in blue added)
Even some atheists, unaware of their solid and consistent ignorance, arrogantly ask: "If everything has cause, what caused God?" This ridiculous atheist question (intented to be a fast and smart refutation of the cosmological argument) has been called "sophomoric" (or typical of colleges' sophomores) by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig (a contemporary and sophisticated philosophical defender of the cosmological argument):
So you can ask: if not one of the best philosophical defenders of the cosmological argument has argued from the "Everything has a cause" premise, why the hell atheist ideologues keep repeating such straighforward lie? Is it intellectual honest? Is it rational?
The answer, according to my experience and opinion, is twofold: 1)As a rule, the cognitive faculties of hard-core materialists and naturalists don't function properly, that is, their mind is essentially irrational, illogical, incapable of thinking straight as a consequence (possibly) of spiritual and psychological factors. And 2)As a rule, they're intellectually dishonest (note that 2 could be a consequence of 1, since an irrational person tend to be impaired to recognize objective values like honesty).
Let's to examine Schick Jr.'s reply to Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument. Schick Jr. quotes directly, from an Aquinas' work, this formulation of the cosmological argument:
In the world of sensible things, we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known ... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go to infinity, because . . . the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause . . . therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name god.
Please, read carefully and objectively (two or three times, or more if you need it) the above Aquinas' quotation. Now, I ask to my dear readers the following straightforward question: In the above Aquinas' text in blue, where the hell is Aquinas saying that "evertyhing has a cause"?
The most inept, irrational, ignorant, stupid person would easily see that in no place of that quotation the premise "evertyhing has a cause" (or that "everything is caused by something other than itself") is mentioned, defended or implied at all.
In fact, Aquinas explicitly limits his premise to the "world of sensible things" (and therefore, of contingent things), which doesn't include God since God is not a "sensible thing" (i.e. we cannot "see" God, He's not an object of our sensory experience, therefore is not part of the "world of sensible things"). So, he's not arguing from "everything", but specifically and only from the known order of efficient causes existent in the world of sensible things.
As has commented philosopher Edward Feser in his lastest book on Aquinas (an excellent introduction to Aquinas' philosophy): "Let us note first (and yet again) that Aquinas does not say, here or elsewhere, that "everything has a cause"; rather, he begins the argument by saying that there are efficient causes and that nothing can cause itself. The implication is that if something is caused, then it is something outside the thing being caused that is doing the causing... Aquinas is committed in particular to the principle of causality, according to which that which comes into being, or more generally, that which is contingent, must have a cause. Needless to say, this is not the same thing as to claim that everything without exception has a cause" (Aquinas, pp 81-82. Emphasis in the original)
However, a "professional philosopher" like Schick Jr. ineptly "constructs" the above Aquinas' argument in this way:
Saint Thomas's argument is this:
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself 2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself. 3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long. 4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause. 5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.
As seen, premise 1 of Schick Jr.'s straw man only exist in Schick Jr.'s (and other atheist believers) imagination. It's pure fiction.
Having constructed such straw man, Schick Jr. proceeds to easily demolish it: "The most telling criticism of this argument is that it is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false"
Bravo!. What amazing display of philosophical sophistication, intellectual power, historical knowledge of classical philosophy and interpretative charity. A typical atheist masterpiece.
In future posts, I'll present more evidence of atheist philosophers attacking the (imaginary) "everyhting has a cause" premise of the cosmological argument.
You'll learn that contemporary atheism, grounded on metaphysical naturalism, is a faith-based ideology constructed on misrepresentations, contantly repeated lies and logical fallacies like the ones mentioned here. And you'll understand such fallacies are almost a constitutive part of the naturalistic worldview because such worldview is (when examined philosophically and critically in depth) extraordinarly weak, and cannot be defended rationally.
And don't waste your time trying to explain this to these atheist individuals. Intellectually, most of them simply cannot understand the difference between the (imaginary) "Everything has a cause", and the actual premise of the traditional versions of the cosmological argument (e.g. Whatever begins to exist has a cause or Whatever is moved is moved by another).
The hard-core atheistic materialist's impaired cognitive faculties and irrationality prevent him to reach to this level of conceptual, logical and semantical distinction.
In his debate with Christian apologist Phil Fernandes, atheist apologist and philosopher Michael Martin replied to the Fernandes' Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence like this:
According to Dr. Fernandes the Kalam cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of God. This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God. I am willing to grant (1) although I believe that this premise is much more controversial than Dr. Fernandes supposes.[5] The other two premises I do not grant. First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible.[6] In particular, Dr. Fernandes misunderstands modern science very badly in supposing that embracing such a view would "destroy the pillars of modern science." It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause. Second, the cause of the universe need not be God. It could be a malevolent being or an impersonal force or a plurality of gods or a finite God. Of course, Dr. Fernandes uses other considerations to support his theistic interpretation of the cause of the Big Bang. But these considerations are not well argued for. For example, he maintains that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence; hence human intelligence cannot come from a mindless universe. However, no good reason is given for this claim and, in any case, a nonmindless universe is compatible with other hypotheses beside theism, for example, polytheism. Third, it is unclear how God could have caused the Big Bang since time is supposed to have been created in the Big Bang. God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect. In particular, causation in terms of intentions and desires are temporally prior to their effects. God's desires and intentions therefore cannot be the cause of the Big Bang. (emphasis in blue added)
Let's to examine Martin's contentions in more detail:
1-First, he misrepresents and misconstructs the kalam cosmological argument, when he formulates it like this: "This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God"
This is simply false. The kalam cosmological argument is actually constructed like this:
1)Whatever begins to exist have (or must have) a cause
2)The universe began to exist
3)Therefore, the universe had a cause
You can see a video explaining the actual formulation of this argument here:
In fact, Fernandes in his opening statement (to which Martin replied), explicitly formulate it in that way: "This argument is called the kalaam cosmological argument for God's existence. Saint Bonaventure utilized this argument.[1] William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland are two modern proponents of it.[2] This argument is as follows: 1) whatever began to exist must have a cause, 2) the universe began to exist, 3) therefore, the universe had a cause."(Emphasis in blue added)
So, note that Martin's misrepresentation of the kalam argument is intentional. It's known as a straw man fallacy and it's unworthy of serious philosophers (Personally, when I read "thinkers" defending intentionally fallacies like that, I loss any intellectual respect for them). Serious philosophers try to examine opposing arguments in their best formulation (i.e. in their strongest version) in order to assess the actual force (or weakness) of the argument. (Instead, propagandists and ideologues tend to use the straw man fallacies, because their purpose is not to find the truth and follow the argument where it leads, but to defend their cherished beliefs and ideology from falsification)
2-On the other hand, Martin's intentional misconstruction of the kalam argument is not an argument of all (all of the propositions used in Martin's straw man have not the form of a logically valid argument). Compare Martin's straw man with the actual formulation of the kalam argument (which is a formally valid argument).
When you see a person arguing like that, you have a powerful reason to doubt that person's intellectual competence. Given that Martin is a trained philosopher, it's unlikely that he cannot understand the arguments he's criticizing. So we can only conclude that his misinterpretation of the kalam argument is intentional (which suggest some kind of intellectual dishonesty).
3-Note Martin's intentional omission of the crucial metaphysical premise of the kalam argument: the premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". That premise is crucial, because it's what warrant the belief that the universe, if it began to exist, must have a cause. (So, the belief that the universe was caused is not arbitrary; rather, it's a consequence of a highly plausible metaphysical principle commonly assumed in science and confirmed by our everyday experience)
Now, astute readers will be in position to see why Martin intentionally misconstructed the argument. He accepts the universe has a beginning, but he denies it was caused (something that he couldn't deny if he accepts the premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". Do you see why he didn't mention that premise at all in his straw man? It's an astute debating tactic, but it's a unacceptable for honest truth seekers and sincere lovers of wisdom)
4-Martin argues: "First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"
How the hell the universe "could" arise out of "nothing"? Martin doesn't explain how such thing could occur. He simply asserts it, without any sound argument to support that view. (it's called the fallacy of proof by mere assertion) Coming from nothing would imply the existence of an effect without a cause, and this seems to be absurd and unintelligible (except for atheist ideologues eager to avoid a conclusion favourable to theism), since an effect is an essential element of a causal relation (i.e. a causal relation is causal precisely because there are causes and effects).
But Martin could reply that his point is precisely that there is not causal relation at all in the beginning of the universe. However, in that case, the burden of proof is in Martin to prove that claim. Simply asserting it is not an argument for it. Only uncritical thinkers will swallow such claim without any evidence or argument.
Moreover, we have powerful reasons to think such thing (coming from nothing) is metaphysically impossible. "Nothing" is not an entity or process, so it cannot create anything at all since "it" doesn't even exist. Nothing is nothing, it doesn't exist. It's not a being, a substance, an entity, a process, a state, a property... it's simply NOTHING (=absolute non-existence at all). Therefore, coming from nothing seems to be make no rational sense at all (but atheists prefer to believe in this nonsense before accepting that naturalism could be false).
Note that nautralists and materialists are "skeptics" of claims about psychokinesis and other phenomena suggesting the causal efficacy of the mind or consciousness, but are highly credulous when they heard that the universe was caused by or come from "nothing". (I ask objective readers: what is more likely, that a mind or consciousness could be causally efficacious, like in psychokinesis or the placebo effect; or that "nothing" could bring into existence something like the whole universe? Why the hell materialistic atheists are extremely skeptical of the former and believers in and highly sympathetic to the latter? I think the reason is obvious: Atheist irrationalists and ideologues are "skeptical" of the former, despite of the evidence for it, because it refutes their worldview; and they're believers of the latter, because it allows them to block the conclusion of the kalam cosmological argument and keep metaphysical naturalism alive. This is more evidence of the extreme weakness of atheistic metaphysical naturalism and, specially, of the fact that the cognitive faculties of these atheists don't function properly, and also of the fact that these individuals are not interested in the truth, but in the defense of their naturalistic-atheistic ideology)
Martin argues that: "Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"
So what? The fact that several comsologists have embraced that view is not a logical argument for the conclusion that it's possible that something can come out of nothing. (Just imagine that I argue that several cosmologists or physicists are theists and have defended that the universe was caused by God. Does it, by itself, show that theism is possible?)
Weak arguments like that provide strong evidence of the extreme weakness of metaphysical naturalism (which rest mostly on faith and wishful thinking and fallacious arguments like that one)
But let's concede, only for the argument's sake and despite of Martin's weak arguments, that it's "possible" to something come from nothing.
Does it mean that such thing is "probable", likely or plausible in the specific case of the universe's beginning to exist? Does it mean we're epistemically justified in believing such thing? Even if it were logically possible that something could come from nothing, we need a reason to think that it is more likely than the (well-confirmed) premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The mere possibility of an idea is not an argument for the probability or plausibility of it. So, Martin needs an argument to convince us that something can come from nothing is not only "possible" (or at least conceivable) but more plausible than whatever begins to exist has cause (the latter is a principle confirmed by our experience, and assumed by science. After all, is not science in the business of explaining facts and phenomena appealing to the causal mechanisms that produce them? So, if the beginning of the universe is a fact, it is not a scientific explanation to say that it comes from nothing, without any rational explanation at all).
Just imagine a professional scientist who, confronted with a new phenomenon X (e.g. a new disease, or an explosion or whatever) would say: "Such phenomenon could come from nothing. Science doesn't require that whatever begins to exist has a cause, so there is not reason to think that the beginning to exist of such phenomenon was caused. It could simply exist, without any cause at all. Period" (Do you think that reply is proper of a scientist? Do you think that belief would help to improve science and promote scientific investigation? Does such belief would promote new and original scientific discoveries about the universe? Do you think it is a proper scientific stance?)
By the way, that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is plausible given our personal and collective experience and the practique of science; so who argues that such principle is false, is making an extraordinary claim given that background. But if it's the case, why the hell atheists don't appeal to the "skeptical principle" that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in that case? Exactly, which is the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that something can come out nothing? Where is the extraordinary evidence for that outlandish claim? Naturalist and materialist ideologues in their pseudo-skeptical humour appeal to that principle when they need to refute or cast doubts on paranormal claims (because such claims refutes naturalism and materialism); but when the claim is entailed or implied by naturalism (e.g. that the universe's beginning wasn't caused by anything), these ideologues "forget" the "extraordinary claims..." rule and uncritically accepts the unsupported claim that the universe came from nothing. (the same applies when these ideologues are highly sympathetic or even accept, without any evidence, the existence of multiverses, i.e. that there are many universes in addition to this one). This is product of wishful thinking, cognitive malfunctioning and irrationality typical of hard-core metaphysical naturalists and materialists.
Take for example the case of multiverses. In this article, infidels writer, atheist and naturalist Richard Carrier believes that such multiverses cannot be proved to exist or not exist, and hence we'd be agnostic about it: "Certainly, we cannot know they do. But we cannot know they do not and thus... agnosticism is the only justified outcome of this line of reasoning"
However, given that the multiverse hypothesis can explain the origin of this universe (and hence, make the hypothesis of God unnecessary, according to atheists), atheists are eager to believe in the evidentially unsupported (and accordintg to Carrier, in principle unprovable) multiverse hypothesis. In fact, in his book, Carrier is highly sympathetic about such evidentially unsupported hypothesis and even dare to make wild (and unprovable) speculations about its nature and features:
"Currently the most credible explanations of the nature and origin of the universe belong to “multiverse theory,” the idea that our universe is just one of many... We don’t yet know if the multiverse has existed for an infinite length of time, or if it had a beginning. . . . it may be that if we keep going back in time we will keep finding universe after universe, and it may well be it is universes all the way down. . . . Our universe is simply in the middle of a fixed, endless structure. For the same reason a multiverse that had a beginning would not have come “from” anywhere—there would exist nothing “before” the first ever moment of time, and that first moment of time, like every moment of time, would simply be an eternal fixed reality. It needs no cause. It is its own cause" (Sense and Goodness witout God, pp. 75-84)
If according to Carrier, the existence of multiple universes cannot in principle be known to exist, on what evidential grounds does Carrier say that the "multiverse theory" is credible? Why does he speculate about the properties of such entities (other universes) if such entities cannot be known to exist or not exist (so making his speculations untestable too)? Where's Carrier's agnosticism (the "only justified outcome of this line of reasoning")? Why does he consider such admittedly unprovable hypothesis to be "credible", while he's highly skeptical of psi claims which, according to skeptics like Wiseman, meet the usual evidential standards for any normal scientific claim (and hence, are scientifically better supported than the multiverse hypothesis, which is untestable, unsupported and in principle UNSUPPORTABLE)?
Do you see why I'm convinced that these individuals are not rational? They change their standards in a ad hoc way in order to keep their beliefs consistent and inmune from empirical or rational refutation. They're deluding themselves (and this is why I submit that these individuals' cognitive faculties don't function properly. Their minds don't function properly in order to figure out and discover the truth. They're irrational) They're not truth seekers, but ideologues, defenders of an atheistic, materialistic ideology. They have an extraordinary faith in and emotional commitment to naturalistic atheism, and they want to believe that atheism is true.
5-Martin's next move is to use another crude, dishonest and obvious straw man: "It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause" (emphasis in blue added)
Who's the hell is arguing that "everything has a cause"? No sophisticated philosophical theist I know of has ever defended such ridiculous statement. And Fernandes is not arguing such thing either.
Again, Martin intentionally misrepresent Fernandes' argument and assumes that is based on the view that "everyhting has a cause". But it is NOT Fernandes' premise. The actual premise is whatever BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause (the "BEGINS" word is key, since that such premise doesn't imply that everything, without exception, has a cause; it only asserts that things that begin to exist, that is, contingent or non-necessary things, needs a cause for their existence)
Atheists intentionally and dishonestly misconstruct the argument in order to make it more easily refutable (After all, atheists like to say, "if everything, without exception, has a cause, then God also needs a cause"... so the theist argument seems to be self-defeating) When you read such thing, you'll know for sure that these atheistic individuals are not worthy of intellectual respect.
In this article, philosopher Edward Feser, commenting on the common and intentional atheist's straw man ("everything has a cause"), has written: "In fact, not oneof the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everythinghasa cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended."
And attacking an argument that no serious philosophical defender of the cosmological argument has ever defended (and certainly, no the argument that Fernandes is defending in his opening statement) is exactly what Martin is doing in his reply to Fernandes, in order to fool his readers and preach for the atheist chorus (a chorus of atheist believers and ideologues which lack the intellectual competence, honesty, objectivity and logical training to spot Martin's straw man fallacies).
It's a shame, since that serious philosophers are characterized by attacking the argument in its best version and as defended by its best proponents (instead of attacking silly straw men). Martin's misconstruction of the kalam argument, and his systematic use of straw men, is an insult to philosophy of religion and the readers' intelligence (in fact, in Martin's books, he repeats the same fallacy again and again when addresing the cosmological argument)
I'm used to that kind of atheistic intellectual dishonesty (or incompetence, or both), but I confess to get strongly annoyed each time I read such fallacies when they are used by supposedly competent atheist philosophers. I consider such thing an insult to philosophy in general and an offense to the intelligence of the readers, even of the honest atheist readers who are genuinely interested in finding the truth about God's existence or non-existence.
For more examples on that kind of intellectual dishonesty and incompetence by atheist philosophers and propagandists, and the "everything has a cause" atheistic straw man, please read this article in Edward Feser's blog.
At the same time, attacking a straw man suggests that the attacker cannot refute the argument in his best formulation (maybe, because the argument is good or plausible if formulated correctly or in its strongest form?)
6-Martin argues that "God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect"
But it doesn't imply that simultaneous causation doesn't exist. In fact, there are many cases where causes and effects are clearly simultaneous (e.g. the potter making a pot, where the potter's positioning his hand in such and such way and the pot's taking on such and such a shape are simultaneous. You can think in your own examples of simultaneous causation)
Routinely, professional philosophers (most of them atheists) interested in causation, discuss cases of actual simultaneous causation (i.e. where causes and effects are simultaneous) and even cases of (more speculatively) "backward causation". As has argued atheist philosopher of science James Ladyman: "Another characteristic of causal relations is that causes usually precede effects in time. Whether this is always so is not immediately obvious, because sometimes it seems that causes and effects can be simultaneous, as when we say that the heavy oak beam is the cause of the roof staying up. Furthermore, some philosophers hold that ‘backwards causation’ where a cause brings about an effect in the past is possible." (Understanding philosophy of science, p. 36)
Even atheist philosopher Quentin Smith, in his defense of the beginning of the universe without needing God as explanation, appeals to simultaneous causation in order to support his case. In his debate with William Lane Craig, atheist Smith argued: "Scientists have been saying for a long time that the universe began about 15 billion years ago with an explosion they call the Big Bang. Bill believes the Big Bang was caused by God and I believe it both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist. At the Big Bang there is a line of simultaneous causes and effects. This is implied both by a Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics and by the EPR correlations - for those of you in the audience who are science majors - which imply - you don't need to understand either of the sciences to understand my talk - and these theories imply that there are instantaneous causal relations between simultaneous events" (emphasis in blue added)
So, that causes usually precede their effects is true; but that causes MUST (always) precede their effects is false, and this point is widely known by philosophers specialized in causation and even explicitly defended by some atheist philosophers of religion (like Quentin Smith) to argue for their atheist case.
Therefore, supposing that God caused the universe, it is not logically nor metaphysically impossible for Him (who's "omnipotent") to bring the universe into existence simultaneously with the creation of the time.
CONCLUSION:
In my opinion, metaphysical naturalism is false (most posts of my blog present evidence for this conclusion). This explains why atheists like Martin employ fallacies when tryting to refute arguments against naturalism (e.g. argument for God's existence). You cannot defend a falsehood in a coherent way. The naturalist needs to distortion and misrepresent consistently the opponent's argument, in order to avoid the refutation of naturalism.
The above also explains why atheists contradict each other in essential points when arguing for their atheism. While Martin tries to block the cosmological argument saying that causes are prior to their effects, Quentin Smith argues his atheist case appealing to simultaneous causation.
The reason for that that they want to reach a atheism-favourable conclusion, and they try to rationalize (i.e. seek reasons to support a previously assumed to be true conclusion) their atheism, in order to find premisses that support their previously assumed atheistic conclusion. (Actual truth-seekers use the reverse procedure: they reach the conclusions AFTER having examined the best reasons for and against a given matter or claim).
As has conceded atheist Thomas Nagel: "I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."
Obviously, if you don't want that a certain claim be true, and you're strongly committed to reject such claim, you're going to use every kind of fallacy in the book in order to avoid the conclusion that you dislike.
This is called WISHFUL THINKING, which is a kind of intellectual delusion and is rampant among metaphysical naturalists (and other people too), and it's the actual explanation of Martin's fallacies, specially his silly straw man and often repeated misrepresentation of the key premise of cosmological argument ("everthing has a cause").
Recommended reading:
-A summary and defense of some of the most sophisticated contemporary arguments for God's existence can be read in this paper by Christian theist and philosopher William Lane Craig (Even though Craig is a believer in the existence of the Christian God, astute readers will realize that some of his arguments support a broad conception of God in general as a supreme spiritual and causally creative cosmic intelligence of great power. Such arguments, like the cosmological argument, don't commit the readers to believe in any religious text or doctrine. It's what make these arguments very interesting from a purely philosophical point of view)
-For a summary of the cosmological arguments for God's existence, see this paper by David Oderberg.
-For an explanation of the "principle of causality" as actually defended by classical theists, see Edward Feser's book Aquinas.
-For a debate between an atheist and a theist on the kalam cosmological argument, see the book Theism, Atheism and The Big Bang Cosmology (by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith)
Have you seriously asked yourself about the implications of naturalism? In other words, if naturalism were true, which is the ultimate purpose of your life or existence? (the key word here is "ultimate")
Some time ago, famous secularist and naturalist philosopher Bertrand Russell commented about this question:
That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; . . . that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built ("A Free Man’s Worship,” in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, eds., Robert E. Egner and Lester E. Denonn. p. 67. Emphasis in blue added)
If naturalism is true, Russell's point seems to be irrefutable.
Whatever you do in this life is, objectively and ultimately, without any trascendence or meaning. You're esssentially, radically and basically (in an ultimate sense) nothing (or more precisely, you come from nothing, and your ultimate end will be literally nothing... being your current existence a mere insignificant cosmic accident, without any ultimate trascendence, meaning or purpose at all).
If naturalism is true, your actual destiny will be radical and permanent EXTINCTION. And no knowledge, no money, no debating tactics, no books, no current fun activities, no "skeptical activism", no self-delusion, no ego, no self-centered interests, no science, no health, no happiness, no hard work, no love, no moral values, no altruism, no admiration from your fellows or friends, no professional merits, no academic titles, no personal victories in whatever field, no activity at all will prevent you to be extinguished... forever. And it would extend for all of us and even to the physical universe itself (which is the only existent reality for naturalism).
The ultimate destiny or fate of the killer, the rapist or the terrotist will be, literally, exactly the same than the destiny of good people: extinction and permanent non-existence. Ultimately, there is not difference at all (be for you or for anybody else, since all of us will be, at the end, extinguished).
This is why it's absolutely crucial that you examine carefully all the relevant the evidence for and against metaphysical naturalism, before you decide accept that worldview (and therefore, to believe and act consistently according to its implications).
Christian philosopher and professional debater William Lane Craig delivered the lecture entitled Dawkins Delusion, where he examined in depth Richard Dawkins' main argument for atheism.
It's important to realize that Craig's refutation of Dawkins' argument is not based on Christianity. So, reargdless of your beliefs (and even if you're an atheist) you could agree with Craig's critical examination of Dawkins' argument.
I've previously published a post on Craig's refutation of Dawkins' argument here. But the above lecture is a more detailed examination of it.
Think hard through Craig's argumentation and draw your conclusions.
Scientific evidence suggests that, in United States, atheists are considered the most distrusted minority.
This fact deserves to be fully understood and studied.
The purpose of this post is to examine if the REASONS hold by most Americans against atheism are JUSTIFIED (given the evidence), or if it's a pure product of the Christian religious "bigotry" or prejudices supposedly typical of most American citizens.
According to this poll: "American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity does not extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology. From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry"
What reasons do have the American citizens to hold such view against atheists? According to the study: "It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.
Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."
Let's to summarize the reasons posed by American people to distrust atheists:
1-Fear of moral decline and social disorder
2-Rampant materialism
3-Cultural Elitism
Please, keep in mind the 3 above reasons, when examining this post. I'll provide EVIDENCE which prove that the above 3 traits are typical and very common in many atheists (specially in the militant materialistic atheists and metaphysical naturalists), and fully explains the American people' distrust on atheism.
Note, for the record, that it doesn't mean that ALL the atheists are like that (or that religious people cannot share traits like the 3 ones mentioned above). The point is that many atheists are like that, and this explains and warrant the inference that atheism (as a WORLDVIEW) will have the consequences feared by most Americans.
Also for the record, the point of this post is NOT to justify, induce or promote any kind of discrimination or persecution against atheists (or believers of any other belief system or worldview, for that matter). Rather, the point is to examine if the REASONS to distrust atheists hold by American people are justified and warranted given the evidence. This is a purely intellectual examination of the evidence and its implications to understand the poll.
If you confront strong believers in naturalistic atheism with this empirical evidence, their reply will almost certainly will be "This is a product of religious bigotry and prejudice. Most people are bigoted against atheists, by religious motives". Or some reply like that.
I think this atheistic reply is false (or irrelevant), and demostrably so. I don't deny that some people is bigoted against atheists by religious motives; but I DO deny that such religious motives are the only reason behind the distrust regarding atheists.
Moreover, the atheistic reply mentioned above is a red herring, and reveals an absolute unability by these atheists to be self-critical and rational, and give us more evidence that their cognitive faculties don't function properly in order to find the truth. This supports other lines of evidence (which I've discussed in depth my blog) suggesting that many materialistic atheists and naturalists are irrational.
Note that in the above poll, the first reason to distrust atheists is essentially of a MORAL kind. In other words, American citizens think that atheism poses a risk to USA in terms of the moral order (i.e. American people think atheism could cause a moral decline and, as consequence, a social disorder).
Let's to examine the evidence to see if the belief of most Americans is true (or at least plausible).
EVIDENCE FOR THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW:
Let's to see how morality is seen by one of the most prominent apologists and influential propagandists for atheism, Richard Dawkins.
According to Richard Dawkins: "If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan... I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police" (Reference: This interview)
I ask my readers: is not that Dawkins' view on morality a straightforward confirmation of what most American people think about the likely moral decline entailed by atheism and the inability of atheism to provide a solid foundation for moral values and judgments?
More broadly and making explicit the worldview considerations underlying Dawkins' atheistic beliefs on morality, Dawkins argues: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." (River Out Of Eden, p.155.)
If Dawkins' atheistic worldview is right, then there is, at the bottom, no evil and no good at all. Is not Dawkins destroying the basic concepts of ethics (like the concept of "good" and "evil")? If evil and good are non-existent, then how the hell is Dawkins' atheistic worldview going to account for moral beliefs and actions?
Is not Dawkins' materialistic atheistic worldview going to cause a "moral decline" (as believed by most Americans in the poll mentioned above)?
In his debate with William Lane Craig, atheist philosopher and biologist Massimo Pigliucci argues: "There is no such a thing as objective morality. We got that straightened out. Morality in human cultures has evolved and is still evolving, and what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean, the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean, and so on"
I ask the objective, rational and neutral readers: Is not Pigliucci's atheistic relativistic belief that "what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door" a belief that, if followed and assumed consistently, would destroy the social order? Is not such belief a potential cause of moral decline? Is not justified the fear of Americans regarding the destruction of morality entailed by atheistic beliefs like that?
Keep in mind that one of the findings of the poll was that "Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong"
Do you think that the atheistic worldview that Dawkins and Pigliucci share might offer an understanding of right and wrong? Is not Dawkins and Pigliucci destroying the basic objective conditions for sharing common stable and rational criteria to understand what's right and what's wrong (or what's good or evil)? Suppose that people like Dawkins or Pigliucci were the controllers of society and apply CONSISTENTLY their atheistic materialistic beliefs: What social consequences would you expect from that?
I think the answers to all of these questions are very obvious, but I let you to decide. Think hard about it.
EVIDENCE FOR THE ATHEISTS' RAMPANT MATERIALISM:
I'll skip this point, since a large part of my blog is dedicated to critically examine atheistic materialism and naturalism, so I don't want to repeat me here.
EVIDENCE FOR THE ATHEISTS' CULTURAL ELITISM:
One of the most obvious traits of atheists (at least, of many of them) is the extreme arrogance and feelings of superior rationality and intelligence of these individuals. This is clearly a delusion, rooted probably in psychological disorders and spiritual causes.
But my interest here is not to speculate about the origin of these individuals' irrationalities and delusions, but provide EVIDENCE which confirms the cultural elitism mentioned by the poll.
Perhaps the most interesting (and funny, I concede) evidence of this is the attempt by some materialistic atheists and naturalists to label themselves as "brights" (implying that non-atheists are not brights), an obviously puerile, monumentally silly and ridiculous self-gratifying label intented to increase their elitistic delusions and irrational fantasies of intellectual superiority.
In the naturalistic website www.the-brights.net, you can read this ridiculous definition of "bright": "
What is a bright?
* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview * A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements * The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
Note that a bright is, by definition, someone who accept the naturalistic ideology. If it's true, then most of the people on Earth (who believe in God or some supernatural or mystical realm) are not brights. Therefore, actual brights belong to a very select group of superior people, hence to an ELITE (and this is a cultural elite, since what make you to belong to it are cultural factors, like the kind of beliefs which you hold: in this case, the belief that the naturalistic ideology is true).
Expanding on the silly self-centered and self-gratifying definitions given above, that ridiculous website continues: "Think about your own worldview to decide if it is free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the description above, then you are, by definition, a bright!
On this website, you can simply say so and, by doing so, join with other brights from all over the world in an extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society—the Brights movement"
Perhaps you're laughing after reading the definitions and arguments given by such a sectarian and elitistic movement. But the topic is serious: it provides independent EVIDENCE which confirms the "cultural elitism" mentioned in the poll above. Note, by the way, that one of the findings of the researchers of poll reported that
As has argued Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser: "Several years ago, Dennett famously suggested in a The New York Times piece that secularists adopt the label "brights" to distinguish them from the religious believers. His proposal doesn't seem to have caught on (perhaps because a grown man who goes around earnestly chirping "I'm a bright" surely sounds rather like an idiot. But whatever the rhetorical deficiencies of "bright", it perfectly encapsulates the self-satisfaction of the secularist mentality: "We're intelligent, informed, and rational, while religious believers are stupid, ignorant, and irrational, not at all bright like us" (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, p. 3)
The "secularist mentality" mentioned by Feser is another name for the "elististic mentality" typical of atheistic materialists and naturalists.
Note, by the way, that the use of silly labels like "brights" (applied by naturalistic atheists to themselves) reveals an obvious egocentric, self-centered, self-gratifying, self-interested kind of personality very common in these individuals. And one of researchers of the poll reported that "Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good" Now, I ask you: calling oneself "bright" while considering the rest of people on Earth "non-brights" (and therefore, inferior to the "brights") is not evidence of being obviously self-centered and having not actual concern with the common good? Do you contribute to the "common good" stigmatizing, discrediting and undervaluating (as "non-brights") the great majority of people on Earth who disagree with you? Is it not evidence for a purely elitistic, sectarian, egocentric, self-interested concern to benefit the "bright" and his own small sect, while discrediting the "non-brights" (i.e. the overwhelming majority of people on the Earth)?
So, I ask you my dear reader, being absolutely objective and given the evidence, are most Americans wrong when they link atheism with cultural elitism?
Judge by yourself. Don't be fooled by the atheists' red herring speculations about bigotry and prejudices of most American citizens. Stick to the EVIDENCE and draw your conclusions from it.
In my view, Americans are right to think that atheism (more specifically, the naturalistic-based atheism, which is the culturally predominant one discussed in this post) would cause a moral decline and bring a severe and dangerous social disorder. I'd add that the naturalistic ideology is dangerous on the intellectual level too, since it tends to impair and destroy the ability to think logically and rationally, as I've discussed in several posts in this blog (also, this explains for example the puerile and ridiculous use of labels like "brights" to define themselves. They are intellectually unable and blind to see their own irrationalities, and how their own behaviour reinforces the justified negative view which most people have about them)
As Feser mentioned, a person who seriously call himself a "bright", sounds like an idiot. And I submit that such person IS probably an idiot, and so unworthy of intellectual respect.
Let's to examine another of atheist Richard Carrier's objections to Alex Rosenberg's essay on the actual and consistent implications of the naturalistic worldview.
Carrier's objection 7 to Rosenberg's article is this:
(Objection 7) Similarly, Alex errs in claiming “there is no self, soul or enduring agent, no subject of the first-person pronoun, tracking its interior life while it also tracks much of what is going on around us” based solely on the premise (and this much is entirely true) “this self cannot be the whole body, or its brain, and there is no part of either that qualifies for being the self by way of numerical-identity over time.” Because what is essentially a person is the pattern of arrangement of the brain that causes us to exist and be as we are, and that pattern can persist even as its underlying material is constantly replaced, it follows that persons do endure as first-person agents. And, in point of fact, they are located behind their eyes and in between their ears. Their memories and personalities and skills and perceptual apparatus certainly doesn’t reside in their toes or their spleen. Destroy the brain, and you destroy the person. Sustain the brain, and you sustain the person. This brain, consisting of real data (real desires, memories, beliefs, personality traits, skills and reasoning abilities, etc.), generates a real model of that data (conscious experience), but the model is not us (for example, we don’t cease to exist when we sleep, all that data remains physically intact, we just stop building models of it for a while). The “subject of the first-person pronoun” is that arrangement of data in the brain. Thus, Alex is wrong to claim no such subject exists. He is also wrong to claim the brain doesn’t track what this arrangement does over time. And though we do change as persons, we share a causal history, and memories and other persisting features, with our past selves, and it is in that sense that we are the same person as before, not in the sense of being exactly identical (which you don’t have to be a naturalist to see is obviously never the case). Science has not undermined any of these conclusions. To the contrary, it continues to reinforce them.
Let's to examine Carrier's objection in more detail:
Carrier criticizes Rosenberg by arguing that no self exists (if naturalism is true). Carrier (mis) constructs Rosenberg's argument like this: "there is no self, soul or enduring agent, no subject of the first-person pronoun, tracking its interior life while it also tracks much of what is going on around us” based solely on the premise (and this much is entirely true) “this self cannot be the whole body, or its brain, and there is no part of either that qualifies for being the self by way of numerical-identity over time"
What's in blue are Rosenberg's words; what's in black are Carrier's words.
In Carrier' straw man, Rosenberg argues from the "sole" premise that the self is not the body (or part of it) to the conclusion that there is not self. But this is not the case.
To correct Carrier's straw man, let's to read Rosenberg's entire argument: "We have to realize that there is no self, soul or enduring agent, no subject of the first-person pronoun, tracking its interior life while it also tracks much of what is going on around us. This self cannot be the whole body, or its brain, and there is no part of either that qualifies for being the self by way of numerical-identity over time. There seems to be only oneway we make sense of the person whose identity endures over time and over bodily change. This way is by positing a concrete but non-spatial entity with a point of view somewhere behind the eyes and between the ears in the middle of our heads. Since physics has excluded the existence of anything concrete but nonspatial, and since physics fixes all the facts, we have to give up this last illusion consciousness foists on us. But of course Scientism can explain away the illusion of an enduring self as one that natural selection imposed on our introspections, along with an accompanying penchant for stories. After all it is pretty clear that they solve a couple of major design problems for anything that has to hang around long enough to leave copies of its genes and protect them while they are growing up" (emphasis in blue added)
Note that Rosenberg's argument includes the idea that to make sense of the existence of the self, we need to believe in the existence of a concrete but non-spacial ENTITY with a point of view. But, given that such entity doesn't exist according to physics (which fixes all the facts in naturalism), then the belief in a "self" is a pure illusion.
Which is Carrier's reply to that argument?
As usual, instead of refuting Rosenberg's actual argument, Carrier begs the question by assuming what needs to be proved. He says: "what is essentially a person is the pattern of arrangement of the brain that causes us to exist and be as we are, and that pattern can persist even as its underlying material is constantly replaced, it follows that persons do endure as first-person agents"
Note that Rosenberg identifies the person or "self" with a concrete non-spatial entity with a point of view, while Carrier identifies the person with a "pattern of arrangement of the brain". So Carrier is not refuting Resenberg's view but simply ASSERTING a personal alternative on the conception of the person. He assumes his own alternative to be true, instead of refuting Rosenberg's. He didn'd address Rosenberg's argument at all.
Having made that, Carrier continues: "And, in point of fact, they are located behind their eyes and in between their ears. Their memories and personalities and skills and perceptual apparatus certainly doesn’t reside in their toes or their spleen. Destroy the brain, and you destroy the person. Sustain the brain, and you sustain the person."
The emphasis in blue is the typical materialist position, which implies that if the brain is destroyed, the person will be destroyed too (because after all, the person is nothing but a certain pattern of arrangement of the brain)
And this argument is interesting, because it is evidence of Carrier's logical inconsistency. When he needs to contradict Rosenberg, he assumes the typical materialistic position mentioned aboved. But when he needs to argue for the "virtues" of naturalism, he defends the idea of inmortality and the afterlife.
In his book, Carrier wrote:
Your mind-pattern can in principle be formed out of many different materials, not just the one we happen to be made of, so it remains possible that we might be able one day to “transfer” our minds to a more durable, enduring medium, like an electronic brain, and thus achieve immortality that way. This would indeed be a life after death—the death of our original bodies and, to borrow a phrase from Christian theology, a resurrection in a new ‘more glorious’ body" (Sense and Goodness Without God, p. 158. Emphasis in blue added).
Note that if the "mind-pattern" might survive after the death and destruction of the body and brain, then Carrier's claim that "Destroy the brain, and you destroy the person" is FALSE (because the person could, in principle, continue to exist after the destruction of the brain).
And if it's true that destroying the brain, you destroy the person, then it's false that "Your mind-pattern can in principle be formed out of many different materials, not just the one we happen to be made of, so it remains possible that we might be able one day to “transfer” our minds to a more durable, enduring medium, like an electronic brain, and thus achieve immortality that way"
On the other hand (and note this carefully), in Carrier's reply to Rosenberg, Carrier defines a person as essentially a "pattern of arrangement of the brain". But if we stick consistently to that definition, how the hell can the "mind-pattern" be "in principle be formed out of many different materials"?
If essential to the definition of a person is that it's a "pattern of arrangement of the BRAIN", then it's false that in principle such pattern could exist (and survive after death) in extra-cerebral materials. In such case, the person wouldn't exist anymore.
You cannot pose the brain as part of a definition of which a person "essentially" is, and then to claim that a person can exist in a non-cerebral medium (like a computer).
In this point, Carrier's only defense is to argue that what is ESSENTIAL to be a person is to have a certain "mind-pattern" or "patttern of arrangement" (independently of whether such pattern is realized in the brain or in another medium like a computer). But making that move refutes Carrier's own definition of person in his reply to Rosenberg and specially and straightforwardly refutes his assertion "Destroy the brain, and you destroy the person".
Therefore, Carrier's position is demostrably INCOHERENT. Instead of replying to Rosenberg with a bunch of logical fallacies and self-refuting incoherencies, Carrier should to have addressed Rosenberg's actual arguments.
The fact that Carrier didn't address Rosenberg's actual position is evidence that he cannot refute Rosenberg's argumentation. Naturalism HAS the implications that Rosenberg has explained in his article and for this reason the objections against it won't (consistently) work.
In my opinion, the reason why naturalists, atheistic materialists and pseudo-skeptics in general consistently stick to these fallacious arguments and defend obvious irrationalities, is that naturalism is false. And you cannot defend falsehoods coherently. In order to defend falsehoods, you need to change your methodology constantly (in an ad hoc way to avoid objections), use double standards, misrepresent other people's arguments, use lies, be straighforwardly inconsistent and dishonest (like arguing that naturalism is not a worldview in order to avoid certain objections, while openly defending an organization which explicitly defines naturalism as a worldview) and in general be a smart and seasoned sophist.
But astute and informed readers will catch you.
Let's to mention a final example of this straightforward inconsistency and irrationality typical of naturalists and atheistic materialists. Richard Dawkins has explicitly defended the following beliefs:
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good(River Out Of Eden. p.155. )
However, Dawkins is famous by his anti-religious documentary entitled "The root of all evil?". Any rational person would formulate the following question: if there is no evil and no good in this universe, how the hell can religion (or any other thing) be the root of all "evil"?
A non-existent evil cannot have any root at all. It is simply non-existent. (Do you see why I'm convinced that many atheistic materialists and Dawkins' followers in particular are irrational and that their minds don't function properly?)
It's simply irrational, logically incoherent, self-refuting. But this is the typical modus operandi of naturalist ideologues, materialists and pseudo-skeptics. Their minds have been destroyed by the false beliefs and fallacies inherent in naturalism, and they cannot think logically (i.e. in a consistent and coherent way) anymore. Their minds are not rational, don't function properly in order to find and discover true propositions or examine the evidence.
Another example: Dawkins has said too: "If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan... I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police. (in this interview)
If the above claim is true, in which "intellectual grounds" are you going to argue that religion is evil (or atheism is good)? How are you to argue that "killing people" is bad? If ultimately, you're not equiped to argue intellectually against something you found obnoxious, then you can only oppose it on non-intellectual grounds (i.e. irrationally). Therefore, you're conceding that your moral position, decisions and judgments are IRRATIONAL.
Dawkins' position, like Carrier's position, like Hebb's position, like Lewontin's position, like Wolpert's position, like Atkins' position, like Hitchens's position, etc. are demostrably incoherent and irrational (and potentially dangerous, if followed and believed consistently). Therefore, no rational, sane and honest person would accept or support it.
But naturalist ideologues cannot see such irrationality, because they take their position (naturalism) for granted. And if naturalism is true, then even fallacies, inconsistencies, irrationalities, moral atrocities, and self-refuting arguments in favor of naturalism (and against religion, spirituality, God, parapsychology, afterlife, etc.) will be justified and permitted.
This is why I have no intellectual respect for these individuals. And this why I think any person of good will will oppose (provided she knows these facts correctly) the ideological agenda advanced by these people.
Such a naturalist ideology is not only an intellectual fraud. It's a moral abomination that people of good will is ethically, spiritually and intellectually obligated to reject, refute and expose in order to avoid the destruction of society and the spiritual, moral and intellectual corruption of the young people.
