Skeptic James Randi comes out as homosexual or gay at 81. The website of D.J. Grothe (President of the James Randi Educational Foundation) provides the information

In the website "For Good Reason" (interview program hosted by D.J. Grothe, who is the President of the James Randi Educational Foundation), you can read an article entitled "A Skeptic Comes Out at 81", in which you can read:

James Randi comes out as gay. He discusses his life as a closeted gay man, and why he is now at age 81 coming out, and why he hasn’t been publicly open about his sexuality sooner. He describes the possible impact his coming out may have on his tireless work advancing skepticism and critical thinking. He discusses his atheism, and whether it, or his sexual orientation, influences the mission of the James Randi Educational Foundation. He talks about gay rights issues such as marriage equality.  He discusses his detractors and what they might make of the news of his homosexuality. And he explores the relevance of gay rights to the skeptical movement

You can download the audio here.

In a previous post, I commented that Tim Bolen (an experienced critic of pseudoskeptics), has suggested, according to his research, that there exists a strong connection between homosexuality and organized skepticism. Bolen says that these organizations have a large number of (in Bolen's words) "angry male homosexuals" and also that "the skeptics particularly like to attack women", , the latter being the kind of misogyny that I've discussed in a another post (see here).

Despite of Randi's declared homosexuality, I cannot draw yet any reliable conclusion about the statistical prevalence of homosexuality among male "skeptics", but this is a topic what we'll have to research in depth..

Stay tuned.

Militant atheism, organized skepticism and immorality: misogyny and sexism: The case of Rebecca Watson (SkepChick) and other examples of atheistic-skeptical morality

 

Before you read this post, you have to be absolutely familiar with my series of posts on atheism and morality, in which I provide strong evidence for the philosophical view of leading contemporary atheistic intellectuals on morality.  These posts were not intended to defend that atheists are immoral, but to argue that atheism (as a worldview) cannot ground ontologically nor rationally the existence of objective morality. This is a philosophical fact which has absolutely nothing to do with whether atheists are good or bad. 

But this post is different. In this post, I'll provide evidence for certain kinds of immoral behaviour which are common (not merely exceptional) on the part of militant "skeptics" and atheists, which suggests that their purely philosophical views on moral subjectivism, relativism and nihilism has PRACTICAL consequences on their own lives as hard-core atheists. This fact has to be understood in the context of the philosophical fact mentioned above.

It is well known that in USA and other countries, certain social beliefs and stereotypes exist about atheists as being immoral. Some polls suggest that atheists are the most distrusted minority in America and the standard response by atheists to it is saying that it is due to religious bigotry. However, as I've argued in this post, I think religious bigotry is not the only factor to consider: The own behaviour and philosophical beliefs promoted by atheists is, for a large extension, responsible for that extreme distrust by the overwhelming majority of society (for example, this kind of irrational, childish and emotional behaviour).

This post will provide more evidence for that contention.

I'll focus on just two proven aspects of consistent immorality shown by militant atheists and hard-core skeptics: Misogyny and Sexism.

Misogyny and Sexism:

Misogyny is defined as "the hatred or dislike of women or girls". 

Sexism is defined as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender;  or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"

The question is whether misogyny and sexism, as defined above, are common among atheistic pseudoskeptics.

 According to former skeptic Stephen Bond, in his article "Why I am no longer skeptic":

"One demographic skeptics are particularly uncomfortable with is the female of the species. It's an increasingly acknowledged fact that the skeptic community is rife with sexism...  Women are a small minority in the skeptic world, and the few who get involved get shit thrown at them constantly by their skeptic peers. Every day, they suffer the whole gamut of attitudes from sneering to leering.

Bond's observation of his former fellows skeptics imply not only sexism on the part of skeptics, but misogyny too, since they feel uncomfortable with the presence of females among them and, in addition, the few women who are part of the skeptical groups GET SHIT thrown at them. This clearly satisfies the definition of misogyny mentioned above.

Bond's testimony is important because he belonged to skeptical groups, so he's talking as a first-hand eyewitness, as an insider.

In confirmation of Bond's accurate observations as an insider, we get independent evidence for the discomfort felt by "skeptics" towards women and girls from people who have studied the history of pseudoskepticism from a more detached scholarly perspective. 

For example, George Hansen, in his scholarly study of CSICOP, observed:

A third distinguishing feature is that the vast majority in CSICOP are male, and this has affected the tone and demeanor of the group... CSICOP is heavily dominated by men, and until 1991 there were no women at all on the Executive Council. A reporter for New Scientist described CSICOP as “white,” “male,” and “slightly geriatric” (Anderson, 1987, p. 51). The inside covers of recent issues of SIdisplay the gender imbalance; the results are summarized in Table 2. The predominance of men characterizes the local affiliates as well. Of the 40 listed local leaders, only two are women.  Certainly academia is predominantly male, and so it is not surprising that a majority of CSICOP’s members are men. However, the percentage does seem disproportionate.
    

Not all the local groups are totally dominated by men, and a CSICOP manual prepared for local groups encouraged the involvement of women. The East Bay Skeptics in California reported that 27% of its members were women (“Members Elect First Board,” 1988), and in a 1990 election of the National Capital Area Skeptics, 3 of 11 listed candidates were women. Despite these efforts, the debunking movement is overwhelmingly run by men. 

    The perceived demeanor. Some have perceived the gender imbalance as
Table 2
DISTRIBUTION OF MEN AND WOMEN IN SKEPTICS’ GROUPS               Fellows        Scientific and             Leaders of
                            Technical Consultants    Local Groups
Men              53                       52                     38 
Women           3                        4                       2
 
Figures based on pages 447-48 and the inside covers of the Summer 1990 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.

If as Bond suggested above, sexism and misogyny is very common among pseudoskeptics and atheist groups, then we'd expect precisely what we find: skeptical and atheist organized groups are, as a rule, "overwhelmingly run by men", as Hansen observed. Women and girls are seen with extreme suspicion and even hostility by most "skeptics", and hence not prominent (or at least egalitarian) status is conceded to them among  atheistic "skeptics". Hansen's statistical data tells us a lot about the mindset of "skeptics" regarding women and girls.

Hansen's observation provides an independent confirmation of Bond's own observations as an insider and former skeptic.

But we have more independent evidence of sexism and misogyny among atheistic pseudoskeptics in the case of SKEPCHICK (her real name is Rebecca Watson), a beautiful pseudoskeptic girl who, according to wikipedia, "described an experience at a skeptical conference, concerning an approach by a man in an elevator, who invited her to his room for coffee and a conversation late at night, after she had talked extensively about disliking being sexualized at atheist conferences.^[19] In a video blog, among other things, she stated that incident made her feel sexualized and uncomfortable and advised, "Guys, don't do that".^[20] Her statement sparked a controversy among the skeptic community.^[21] Her critics said she was overreacting to a trivial incident, most notably Richard Dawkins, who wrote a satirical letter to an imaginary Muslim woman, sarcastically contrasting her plight to Watson's complaint. This in turn caused him to be criticized by those supporting her on the issue, including several figures in the community.^[22][23] Watson announced that she would not buy or endorse Dawkins's books and lectures in the future.^[22] She also wrote that, as a result of Dawkins's criticism, her Wikipedia article was vandalised and offensive images were posted on her Facebook page"

According to the Mail and Guardian website, the skepchick case triggered "a fairly useful debate about feminism, sexism and appropriate sexual boundaries between men and women descended into all out troll warfare and an attendant witch-hunt to persecute sexists in the atheist community."

Watson published in youtube a video commenting on the case:

Moreover, Watson has commented on the bigotry of some "skeptics" in this article. 

In order to understand clearly why some skeptics and atheists are like that, I suggest to carefully read:

-Bond's article on skeptics

-My posts on atheism and morality

-My posts on Jime's Iron Law

-My post on atheism, secular humanism and sexual perversions.

If you fully understand the above posts, you won't be surprised by the evidence of immorality discussed in this post.

5 basic conclusions about my psychological experiment on pseudo-skepticism as a trait of the human mind

In a previous post, I mentioned one experiment that I did to test the hypothesis that "Human beings tend to be pseudoskeptics regarding conclusions or ideas they disagree with"

I used as an example the historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection (which in my opinion, and for my complete astonishment, is reasonably good).

Here are some of the conclusions of my experiment:

1-Pseudoskepticism is a property of the human mind. It has to do with the functioning of the human mind when it is confronted with data, evidence, facts or arguments which are incompatible with previous strong beliefs.

In the case of my experiment, most of the readers who commented to me were people strongly hostile towards Christianity, and hence Jesus'resurrection is not even a possible alternative worthy of consideration, whatever the evidence for it is. This is why they used commonly known pseudoskeptical tactics (red herrings, falsehoods, sheer speculations, ill-informed criticisms, double standards, straw men and unproven assumptions) in order to explain (or explain away) the evidence for Jesus' resurrection.

I was astonished to find intelligent people appealing, for example, to the evils caused by Christianity as a serious or relevant objection to Jesus' resurrection (an argument that is obviusly ridiculous and that they wouldn't take seriously if it were used to attack their own positions sympathetic to spiritualism or parapsychology).

This red herring shows that their hostilite to Christianity is largely emotional, not rational. You don't determine the truth or falsehood of a given worldview or position on the grounds of the behaviour of some of its radical followers. You determine it on the grounds of the evidence alone.

2-Pseudoskepticism is essentially a psychological method to protect a given set of basic beliefs from falsification or refutation, not a method to find the truth.

This is a motive of serious motive of concern for me, because I consider pseudoskepticism a major obstacle to find the truth and to being rational.

3-Pseudoskepticism includes a self-protecting method: The person behaving as a pseudoskeptic DOESN'T and CANNOT realize that his attitude is irrational. On the contrary, he considers his position perfectly rational and valid, even "obvious". Moreover, he'll consider that people who disagree with him are irrational, stupid and ignorant, because they're not able to see the same that the pseudoskeptic can see as obvious.

Again, this is a motive of concern because it implies that the possibility of self-correction (essential to any truth seeker) regarding strong basic beliefs is excluded in advanced or undermined.

For example, you'll remember materialist philosopher J.J.Smart arguing that "Someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad-- I would probably go mad" (J.J.C. Smart in his contribution to the book Atheism and Theism, pp.50-51. Emphasis in blue added)"

Note that for Smart, God's existence won't be accepted regardless of the evidence. Not even publicly confirmed objective evidence will produce a change of opinion in him regarding the falsehood of naturalism. Confronted with irrefutable evidence for supernaturalism which he cannot deny, he'll choose to believe that he has gone mad.

For my astonishment, some of the anti-Christian people who wrote to me has a similar position: They confessed that they won't accept Jesus' Resurrection, or its relevance as evidence for Christianity, regardless of the evidence. For people like them, Christianity is false a priori.

Note that in both cases it is not the evidence, but the pseudoskeptic's strong beliefs, which determine the conclusions that he'll have. In fact, these strong beliefs even will determine what kind of data will count as evidence (and what data won't count as evidence). Again, it is not the evidence, but the pseudoskeptic's own belief system, which determines his reading of the evidence.

Actually, his negative emotions and past experiences (probably negative ones) will determine largely his wordlview.

In my case, when I examine whatever topic, I don't know in advance where the evidence is going to lead me (precisely by this reason is that I'm researching the topic in question). And I'm emotionally and intellectually prepared, if the evidence leads me to it, to accept a conclusion, belief, idea or theory that I find strongly repugnant or impalatable.

For example, I find repugnant the idea of reincarnation, but if the evidence for it is good (as I think it is, even thought not conclusive), then let it be. If the evidence leads to Jesus' resurrection (as I think it does), let it be. If the evidence leads to Islam, led it be, if the evidence leads to atheism, let it be and so on.

You have to detach your emotions, dislikes and tastes from the sober, always cold, rational evaluation of the evidence.

I think this is the proper mindset of a truth seeker.

4-Just for the record: I've also experienced pseudoskepticism in myself and have used the same peudoskeptical strategies to refute a matter which I disagree with. So I'm familiar to it in first-person. I've also used the same unproven speculations and purely imaginative scenarios ("it could be that...", "perhaps it is..." and so forth) in order to avoid a conclusion that I don't like.

Precisely for this reason, I'm almost obssesed with the psychology behind pseudoskepticism and what method could be used to counter it, because pseudoskepticism is a major obstacle to the truth.

Currently, I can see when I'm begining to use these pseudoskeptical methods and inmediatly try to stop them. I say to myself that I'm trying to find the truth, not to protect my beliefs and compare the structure of my objections with the ones used by pseudoskeptics in order to see if I'm using the same tactics.

5-Paranormal pseudoskepticism (of people like Shermer, Hyman, etc.) is a natural corollary of the strong belief in metaphysical naturalism and atheistic materialism. This is a species of pseudoskepticism, not qualitatively different than any other form of pseudoskepticism (it is only different in its contents, not in its overall methods of debunking).

The methods of pseudoskepticism are pretty the same, regardless of the topic discussed.

This is why the best method to attack paranormal pseudoskepticism is to attack metaphysical naturalism and atheistic naturalism (an insight that most parapsychologists have not realized and this explains the parapsychologist's naive and largely non-efficacious attempt to reply to the skeptic using scientific evidence and arguments alone. The latter is necessary, but not sufficient, because what is at stake is not only the evidence, but how this will be read in the light of worldview considerations. This is why Chris Carter's book Parapsychjology and the skeptics is an original contribution to the field, because it is one of the few books which addresses these worldview considerations).

Paul Kurtz resigns from the pseudoskeptical organization Center for Inquiry (CFI) due to that group's intolerance and dogmatism

It's already old news that in 2009 Paul Kurtz, known as the "father of secular humanism" and the founder of the pseudoskeptical organization CSICOP (now called CSI for propagandistic reasons) has resigned from the Center For Inquiry (CFI) group due to that group's intolerance (an intolerance that Kurtz has endorsed for years).

According to Kurtz' own entire statement: "The celebrating of "Blasphemy Day" by the Center for Inquiry by sponsoring a contest encouraging new forms of blasphemy, I believe is most unwise. It betrays the civic virtues of democracy. I support the premise that religion should be open to the critical examination of its claims, like all other institutions in society. I do have serious reservations about the forms that these criticisms take. For example, cartoons have been recently circulated ridiculing key figures in Christianity, such as a cartoon depicting a feminine Jesus painting his "nails" with red nail polish, or the drawing of the Pope with a long nose like Pinocchio.

When we defended the right of a Danish newspaper to publish cartoons deploring the violence of Muslim suicide bombers, we were supporting freedom of the press. The right to publish dissenting critiques of religion should be accepted as basic to freedom of expression. But for CFI itself to sponsor the lampooning of Christianity by encouraging anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, or any other anti-religious cartoons goes beyond the bounds of civilized discourse in pluralistic society. It is not dissimilar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the Nazi era. Yet there are some fundamentalist atheists who have resorted to such vulgar antics to gain press attention. In doing so they have dishonored the basic ethical principles of what the Center for Inquiry has resolutely stood for until now: the toleration of opposing viewpoints.

It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance. One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society. I apologize to my fellow citizens who have suffered these barbs of indignity."

Readers of my blog know that one of the insights that I've had studying the pseudoskeptical movement for so many years is that, with some exceptions and qualifications, in general the cognitive faculties of metaphysical naturalists, secular humanists and materialists don't function properly. It means that the mind of these individuals is not rational anymore, because their rationality has been destroyed and impaired by spiritual, psychological and ideological reasons.

I'm more convinced that the above is true than I'm convinced for the evidence for an afterlife (that is, I think the afterlife probably exist, but my conviction about it is less strong than my conviction that the cognitive faculties of hard-core atheists, naturalists and materialistic pseudo-skeptics don't function properly. I'm reasonably sure these people are irrational, and demostrably so)

Examining Kurtz's statament, we have more evidence of the irrationality of secular humanists, materialists and metaphysical naturalists and their severely and permanently impaired cognitive faculties. Let's to comment Kurtz's statement in more detail:

-Kurtz comments on the CFI's dogmatists: "The celebrating of "Blasphemy Day" by the Center for Inquiry by sponsoring a contest encouraging new forms of blasphemy"

My God. Do you imagine a bunch of adults participating in a contest for creating "new forms of blasphemy"? Do you imagine an atheist, feeling very happy and "superior" after having won the trophy "The CFI champion for the world's most original blasphemy"? Honestly, do you consider it an activity proper of sane, socially adapted, spiritually advanced, psychologically stable, rational individuals?

Rational and sane people like to participate in contests related to sports, debates or even video games, not to "new forms of blasphemy".

Even sane, psychologically stable, non-ideological atheists would laugh of such ridiculous activity and wouldn't participate in it for reasons of respect and self-respect.

-Kurtz also comments on the childish nature of atheistic dogmatists and ideologues: "For example, cartoons have been recently circulated ridiculing key figures in Christianity, such as a cartoon depicting a feminine Jesus painting his "nails" with red nail polish, or the drawing of the Pope with a long nose like Pinocchio"

Again, do you think any adult person approving, engaging and having such behaviour is sane, stable, mature and rational? Do you imagine a adult man attacking Jesus with so ridiculous and childish actions like depicting Jesus with red nails? Is it a rational, scientific-minded behaviour? Of course not. They're the actions of spiritually negative, psychologically insane, intellectually inferior, socially inept, morally handicaped individuals.

I think that is another reason why hard-core atheists and propagandists for atheism are the most distrusted minority in USA. This atheistic irrationality possibly also explain why atheists tend to become social outcasts in America and other societies, and this is not my opinion, but the own confession of Richard Carrier, a champion of atheistic apologetics and propagandist for metaphysical naturalism: "as atheists know better than anyone else on the planet, if you say you don’t believe you often become a social outcast" (Sense and Goodness without God, p. 269)

Carrier is right, but the deeper question is: Why do atheists become social outcasts? My answer: because hard-core atheists, materialists and naturalistic ideologues, like the members of CFI that Kurtz is criticizing, are irrational, hostile, socially inept and spiritually negative people. Like it or not, this is the truth.

Keep in mind that these are the same irrational individuals who attack the evidence for parapsychology and afterlife research, and spirituality in general. They are attracted by negative actions, they are like a team of destruction instead of a team of construction and positivity. And this is exactly what we'd expect and predict of irrational, fanatical, negative and hostile people.

By the way, another interesting thing that I've discoveried studying atheist ideologues and dogmatists is their consistent use childish, puerile and infantile ideas, attacks or critiques. I'm using "childish", puerile and infantile in the literal sense, that is, as something proper of children. This suggest that hard-core atheists had a personal experience when they were children, which caused their hostility to God, spirituality and religion. They're stuck in a pre-teen personality (this also could explain why they use analogies of Santa Claus, unicorns and fairy tales when criticizing scientific evidence for psi or the afterlife; or why they use drawings of the Pope with a long Pinocchio's nose. Note that all of these attacks are related to child stories and characters. These materialistic and naturalistic ideologues are not only irrational, but inmature and extremely childish too, which is another insight we have to keep present when examining the psychology of these dogmatists and ideologues).

For example, I don't remember having laugh louder that when I read Richard Carrier's childish and infantile fantasies of a "Secular Humanist Heaven" in his book Sense and Goodness without God, fantasies which are mostly based on Star Trek (I'm not kidding you). I've' read ridiculous things and delusions, but it is far beyond of what I could take.

For example, conceding his inspiration in Star Trek, Carrier writes that the "Secular Humanist Heaven" is "a world rather like that in Star Trek: The Next Generation" (p. 405).

Consistent with his Star Trek wishful thinking, and expanding his wild childish fantasies, Carrier suggests the possibility of inmortality in naturalism: "We might even make immortality possible. It may even happen that, in the fullness of time, we will be able to transfer our minds, by transferring the patterns of our brains, into computer-simulated worlds that are in even more perfect regulation than the physical world, a true paradise. And this simulated universe, and the computers that produce it, would itself be a self-sustaining, self-maintaining, self-repairing, self-expanding artificial organism. It is possible it will never die" (p. 406)

Keep in mind that such claims come from a self-proclaimed "skeptic", someone who supposedly doesn't believe in scientifically unsupported claims or fantasies!

Trying to formulate an original argument against God's existence, natural atheologian Carrier writes: "Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand. After all, that there are no blue monkeys flying out my butt is sufficient reason to believe that there are no such creatures, and so it is with anything else"(p.273)

What amazing piece of atheistic and naturalistic philosophy!. (See an analysis of Carrier's argument in this post) Seriously, this is what we'd expect from a person with a pre-teen personality, a person clearly stuck in his childhood years.

The point is that such childish critiques are not uncommon in the atheistic and naturalistic literature. And this provides more evidence for the hypothesis that the cognitive faculties of these individuals don't function properly, they're irrational and their personalities are infantile.

Another example of the puerile and childish personality of atheistic dogmatists and ideologues is the silly attempt of many of them to call themselves "brights". But as philosopher Edward Feser has commented: "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." (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, p. 3)

So, I'm not surprised at all by the "paintings and cartoons against Jesus" by the irrational atheists mentioned by Kurtz. This is exactly what we should to expect from irrational people.

-Kurtz comments that "Yet there are some fundamentalist atheists who have resorted to such vulgar antics to gain press attention. In doing so they have dishonored the basic ethical principles of what the Center for Inquiry has resolutely stood for until now: the toleration of opposing viewpoints"

I'd like to comment that the reason why the members of CFI don't respect their "basic ethical principles" is that consistent naturalists know that metaphysical naturalism doesn't provide a foundation for objective moral values, duties, principles and laws. For consistent atheistic materialists and naturalists, moral values are subjective, man-made and therefore they're not obligated to follow or respected them.

Naturalist and atheist philosopher Keith Augustine has powerfully and compellingly defended such position: "I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws"

An important factual concession is seen there: the self-perception of atheists is that moral laws (and we can add: principles, duties and values) are not objective. Objective moral laws don't exist to materialistic atheists and naturalists, according to their own self-perception.

But more importantly to our present discussion, is Keith's insight: "It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them"

The parts in blue reveal the actual and key self-perception of atheists regarding the nature of ethical codes and, more importantly, the respect for moral laws and duties. If such duties and laws are not objective, and are purely man-made, why the hell should human beings respect or follow them? There is not actual ethical reason to follow them, except purely prudential, strategical and conditional motives to do it (e.g. if you don't want to be a social outcast, you should respect the codes of society. But this respect is purely strategical and prudential, not due to an objective moral and ethical nature of the rules in question)

Now, we're in position to understand why the CFI members don't follow the (man-made according to them) ethical principles of tolerance and respect. In their self-perception, they're not actually and objectively obligated to follow such principles (nor any other ethical principle, for that matter... except for prudential or strategical reasons alone). If breaking such ethical rules is strategically useful to destroy religion, parapsychology and spirituality, a consistent naturalist will support such unethical actions. Ethical rules have a purely utilitarian usefulness, not any intrinsic and objective moral value.

In fact, it's a little bit hypocritcal for Kurtz to complain that CFI dogmatists don't follow their self-imposed ethical principles, when Kurtz himself (as a consistent naturalist) has rejected the objectivity of moral values and duties. In his book "The Forbidden Fruit", Kurtz himself argued: "The moral principles that govern our behaviour are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion" (p. 65)

If it's true, then it's also valid for CFI's arbitrary moral principles governing the actions of their members. So, why the hell should the CFI's dogmatists to respect such principles, if breaking them is more useful in certain cases to destroy the image of Jesus and religion?

Given Kurtz' own worldview (metaphysical naturalism) he is in not position to reject the CFI's members actions on the basis of (objective) ethical considerations. After all, as naturalist and secularist philosopher and darwinian biologist Maximo Pigliucci has argued: "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." (See Pigliucci's arguments in his debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig)

We have to recognize Kurtz for criticizing the irrationality of CFI's dogmatists and fundamentalist atheists. But Kurtz is far from being innocent of intolerance and dogmatism against religion, and specially against the scientific research in parapsycology. As Marcello Truzzi (an original member of Kurtz' CSICOP) wrote: "Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers"(emphasis in blue added)

William Lane Craig and Lewis Wolpert: Public lessons on atheist, pseudo-skeptical and materialist irrationality... from England with love.

The above video is an excerpt of the debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and atheist/materialist Lewis Wolpert.

Readers of my blog know that I'm of the opinion that atheistic materialism and metaphysical naturalism, when consistently assummed and believed, destroy and impair the ability to rational and logical thinking. As consequence, believers in materialism and naturalism tend to be VERY irrational (this is well known for any person who has debated wtih these individuals).

However, some materialists, naturalists and pseudo-skeptics are smart, so their fallacies and irrationalities are not very obvious; you need to examine their whole philosophy, behaviour and arguments (in different contexts) to realize their inconsistencies. With training and practice, however, you can spot their irrationalities almost instantaneously.

But in the case of Lewis Wolpert, you don't need any training at all. His fallacious thinking is straighforward and obvious (as you can see in the above video, where the audience easily realized Wolpert's fallacies).

In the video, Craig is explaining that the first cause of the universe has the following properties:

-Timeless (because that cause created the universe and therefore the space-time itself)

-Spaceless (because space, which is part of the physical universe, was created too with the universe.)

-Immaterial (because the cause created the physical or material world itself. It's the origin of matter)

-Very powerful

-Personal.

Please, examine carefully the above properties mentioned by Craig. Read it again carefully.

You don't need to be a genius to see that such properties are like the properties or attributes that traditional monotheistic religions consider as typical and proper of God. But in any case, they're definitively NOT the properties of any finite material object like a horse or a TV or a T-shirt or a basketball ball.

Well, what's Wolpert's atheist reply to Craig's argument? That the first cause, with these properties, is actually a COMPUTER!

My God... I've read a lot of atheist, pseudo-skeptical and naturalist literature, and I'm used to their fallacies and irrational thinking, but I must confess that Wolpert's reply is a MASTERPIECE OF ATHEIST IRRATIONAL THINKING.

This is definitevely the worst reply for an argument that I've seen in my entire life, and this is a fine example of the destructive intellectual consequences of a consistently assumed naturalism and atheistic materialism. This is good evidence of the destructive potential of atheistic materialism and naturalism for the mind of its believers and followers.

Even the most stupid, retarded and inept person would understand that a computer CANNOT have the properties or attributes of the first cause of the universe by the following reasons:

1-Computers are material (and the first cause is immaterial)

2-Computers have a position on the space and time (and the first cause is the creator of the space and time)

3-Computers are artifacts and therefore are designed by an intelligence. Therefore, they're effects of intelligence, not the cause of it. And if they're effects of something else, then they're not a first cause at all.

Wolpert tries to force the ad hoc argument that the first cause is a computer, with atypical properties (self-designed, nonphysical, etc.). But note that if these atypical properties are accepted, then you're not talking of a computer anymore, because any object or entity is defined precisely by its essence and essential properties; and the essential properties of a computer don't include immateriality, timeless, etc.

Craig, realizing Wolpert's world-class atheist fallacy, exposes him with the obvious reply (in the second 54 of that video): Wolpert is calling "computer" what everybody understand as God (because the first cause has the properties of God, not of computers).

Wolpert didn't refute the argument about the properties of the first cause, he's only ARBITRARILY and in a AD HOC WAY, changed the name or label of the entity which has the properties that everybody agree are typical or proper of God.

Please, note Wolpert's face in minute 1:01 (when the audience applauded Craig for exposing Wolpert's ridiculous atheist fallacy)

Perhaps you're laughting a lot after watching the video (I concede it's very funny). But it has a sad side: If an academician like Wolpert, in a public debate, is able to reply with a world-class fallacy and irrationality like that, what do you expect of online amateurs materialistic atheist and pseudo-skeptics? Moreover, what could you infer about an scholar who argue like that?

More importantly, the destructive effects of materialistic atheism and naturalism on the human mind is actually what's in stake here. This is a serious motive for concern. The destructive psychological effects of atheistic materialism become obvious when the topic of discussion is God (because an essential part of the materialistic atheists' irrationality is their obvious and constant obsession with God and creationism. They have these topics constantly in their minds.) If in a debate, you press the point about God with an atheist, you'll see the atheist' full destructive potential for irrationality and delusion to become evident. You'll have a monster in front of you.

And in that point, any more argument with the atheist will be time bomb. You'll be confronted with his irrationality, delusions, resentment and therefore his intellectual (intentional) dishonesty.

If you'are smart, and know the psychology of pseudo-skeptics (grounded on emotional and spiritual factors), you should to anticipate all of this, and avoid that kind of intellectually sterile debate with hard-core atheists, materialists, naturalists, secular humanists, pseudo-skeptics and similar dogmatists. They're not rational, and debating with them tends to force you into irrationalism too.

You should to follow philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's very wise suggestion in his book The Art of Controversy:

"As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one's thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal: If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.

The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool - desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la verite. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace" (emphasis in blue added)

Please, think about Schoperhauer's practical suggestion in the context of Wolpert's reply to Craig.

Links of interest:

-Lewis Wolpert debate with Rupert Sheldrake on telepathy.

The Making of An Atheist: How Immorality leads to unbelief by James Spiegel. Reflections on the psychology of atheism and pseudoskepticism

I've gotten a copy of the book "The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality leads to Unbelief" by professional Christian philosopher James Spiegel. (See the summary of this book on the end of this post)

I haven't read the book yet, so I cannot comment anything about its specific contents.

However, I'd like to say the book addresses an aspect that, in my opinion, have been largely neglected in the literature critical of atheism and pseudo-skepticism in general: the psychological roots of atheism (and pseudo-skepticism, I'd add).

This psychological aspect has been neglected because it's thought that the origin of any belief has nothing to do with the validity of the belief. And this is true from a logical point of view, but it's false from a psychological point of view.

Let me to explain it better:

From a logical point of view, the truth or falsity of a proposition X is independent of the psychological or emotional motivation of the people who hold it. For example, the statement "God exists" is true or false, regardless of the psychological reasons to affirm or deny it.

However, from a psychological point of view, the statement "God exists" will be considered positive and good (or at least with a sympathetic eye) by many people (spiritual people, religious persons, etc.), and will be considered negative and bad by another people (atheists).

In other words, the psychological background of each person will determine, or strongly influence, the receptivity of the idea that God exists. And this psychological background will determine too how people respond to arguments in favor of God's existence (this is why the same argument is considered good by some people, and bad for others).

Spiegel's book is an examination (from the Christian perspective) of the psychological roots of atheism; and as the title suggest, the immorality seems to be (according Spiegel) the stronger factor leading to atheism.

I don't know if Spiegel's thesis about the connection immorality-atheism is correct; personally, I tend to think the root of atheism (and particularly, of the ideological atheistic materialism typical of pseudo-skeptics) is mainly due to the following TWO factors:

1-A personal painful emotional experience (mostly during childhood or adolescence) related to religion or spirituality or something connected with it; in particular:

-Being forced to pray

-Being forced to go to the Church

-Being abused by some religious relative or authority (e.g. being sexually abused by a religious believer; or being abused by a religious teacher in school; or being emotionally or socially abused by some religious bigot)

This deep emotional and spiritual wound, connected with religion/spirituality, is the basic psychological motivation behind militant forms of atheism, naturalism, materialism and pseudo-skepticism; and fully explains the dishonesty, irrationality, intellectual submission to the authority of mainstream science and arrogance typical of these individuals (remember that some of them proclame themselves as "brights", implying that non-atheists are not brights).

In this paper, David Leiter, who had a long first-hand experience dealing with materialistic atheists and pseudo-skeptics, discoveried this: "The theme that has emerged time after time, as I become closely acquainted with individual PhACT members is this: Each one who has disclosed personal details of their formative years, say up until their early 20’s, has had an unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy, most often a conventional major religion.

Very often, their family or community has (almost forcibly) imposed this philosophy on them from a very early age; but then as they matured, they threw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again. Less often, it appears that they have instead voluntarily and enthusiastically embraced, for example, a New Age cult, or have become say, a born-again Christian. Then after a few years, they become convinced of the folly of that infatuation with the same basic result. They throw off this philosophy with a vengeance, vowing at a soul level never to be so victimized again.

A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional. They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything. This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members. Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind".

2-As consequence of point 1: there is exists very often a hatred towards and fear of God (or spirituality and religion in general) and therefore an irrational wishful thinking for atheism and naturalism (even in the face of contrary evidence) that impairs, distortions and destroys the atheist/materialistic's rational thinking skills. This makes them essentially irrational.

This point has been noted by some honest naturalists themselves. In his book The Last Word, first rate naturalist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued that:

"I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. 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.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world" (emphasis added)

In his paper The Contents and Appeal of Naturalism (which is part of the excellent book Naturalism In Question), another first rate philosopher, naturalist Hilary Putnam, wrote: "Naturalism", I believe, is often driven by fear, fear that accepting conceptual pluralism will let in the "occult", the "supernatural" (emphasis added)

Another first rate naturalist philosopher, John Searle, has realized that point too. He wrote: How is it that so many philosophers and cognitive scientists can say so many things that, to me at least, seem obviously false?... I believe one of the unstated assumptions behind current batch of views is that they represent the only scientifically acceptable alternatives to the anti-scientism that went with traditional dualism, the belief in the immortality of the soul, spiritualism, and so on. Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives. That is, the choice we are tacitly presented with is between a "scientific" approach, as represented by one or another of the current versions of "materialism", and an "unscientific" approach, as represented by Cartesianism or some other traditional religious conception of the mind" (The Rediscovery of the Mind, pp. 3-4. Emphasis in blue added).

Whoever has interacted with pseudo-skeptics and dogmatic atheists has realized their intellectual dishonesty, their irrationality (e.g. they continously and obsessively talk about creationism and God even when you're not talking about these topics), and their tendency to ad hominem attacks. These factors are clearly IRRATIONAL and suggest that something is seriously wrong with the cognitive faculties of these individuals.

Many of them are deluded; and the main self-delusion is to think that they're rational and free thinkers.

As part of my study of the cultural, psychological and philosophical origin of materialistic pseudo-skepticism, I'm sure the naturalist ideology is rooted in a certain psychological and emotional structure, and I've discoveried a lot of curious and not well-known facts related to it (but I haven't commented anything in detail yet... stay tuned) because I'm still collecting the evidence to support my hypothesis.

Spiegel seems to suggest that immorality is a causal factor in atheism too; but in my opinion, the immorality is CONSEQUENCE of the irrationality and resentment rooted in the deep emotional wound suffered by militant pseudo-skeptics and atheistic materialists during their formative years, not a cause of this phenomenon as such. But I don't discard Spiegel's hypothesis.

Just by the record, in my opinion, all the above factors apply only to dogmatic, militant, ideological kind of atheists (e.g. the militant members of skeptical organizations, many of the commenters and posters of Richard Dawkins' internet forum or the strident bully-like atheist-materialist believers who comments in PZ Myers's blog; the hard-core followers of James Randi, the "fans" of Michael Shermer, etc.).

These factors don't apply necessarily to open mind seekers who, in their research, are not convinced of God or anything spiritual. However, in my experience, this kind of "rational unbelievers" are rare birds, are very exceptional (in fact, this kind of honest atheists are annoyed by the rhetoric, dishonesty, irrationality and ad hominem attacks of militant and strident atheists; and are open to a sympathetic consideration of the evidence for parapsychology, afterlife research and even religion. They don't have an axe to grind against these topics).

Anyway, I think you should read Spiegel's book and draw your conclusions.

Links of interest:

-Interview with James Spiegel about his book.

-Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosemberg's article on the actual implications of metaphysical naturalism.

-Naturalist philosopher David MacArthur's paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"

-My post on naturalist philosopher Thomas Nagel and the Fear of God.

-Some notes on (pseudo) skepticism.

P.S.

A summary of Spiegel's book can be read here:

Sigmund Freud famously dismissed belief in God as a psychological projection caused by wishful thinking. Today many of the “new atheists”—including Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens—make a similar claim, insisting that believers are delusional. Faith is a kind of cognitive disease, according to them. And they are doing all they can to rid the world of all religious belief and practice.

Christian apologists, from Dinesh D’Souza to Ravi Zacharias, have been quick to respond to the new atheists, revealing holes in their arguments and showing why theistic belief, and the Christian worldview in particular, is reasonable. In fact, the evidence for God is overwhelming, confirming the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 1 that the reality of God is “clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20, NIV).

So if the evidence for God is so plain to see, then why are there atheists? That is the question that prompted The Making of an Atheist. The answer I propose turns the tables on the new atheists, as I show that unbelief is a psychological projection, a cognitive disorder arising from willful resistance to the evidence for God. In short, it is atheists who are the delusional ones.

Unlike Dawkins and his ilk, I give an account as to how the delusion occurs, showing that atheistic rejection of God is precipitated by immoral indulgences, usually combined with some deep psychological disturbances, such as a broken relationship with one’s father. I also show how atheists suffer from what I call “paradigm-induced blindness,” as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God manifest in creation. These and other factors I discuss are among the various dimensions of sin’s corrupting influence on the mind.

I’ve been told that The Making of an Atheist is a provocative book, but I didn’t write it to provoke anyone. I simply wanted to tell the truth about this issue. Anyway, since the new atheists are bold enough to trumpet their claim that theists are delusional, it seems appropriate that someone should be willing to propose that the opposite is true. As they say, turnabout is fair play.