Nori Muster's review of the book Modern Religions: An Experimental Analysis and Exposé by Elliot Benjamin

Elliot Benjamin, Ph.D., describes his experiences in a variety of new age spiritual organizations, most of which are psychology-based groups. He describes each group and offers his ratings based on three academic scales in use since the 1970s: the Anthony Typology, the Wilber Integral Model, and the Bonewits Cult Danger Scale. He then places the groups on a spectrum that ranges from favorable and benign to high cult danger. The first hundred pages of the book familiarize the reader with the scales and Dr. Benjamin’s method of rating.

Developing a reliable rating method is useful, since it emphasizes the differences between groups, and would prevent journalists and casual researchers from lumping all new age spiritual organizations in the same category of danger. Along with the more notorious groups such as Scientology and Avatar, Dr. Benjamin rates about a dozen groups that he considers benign. This may help researchers who study group dynamics to recognize what makes a group dangerous. It may also inform religious leaders who want to fall on the favorable-benign side of the spectrum.

Researchers will find plentiful information on lesser known groups. Since many of the groups described in the book are small, or not considered dangerous, until now they may have been ignored in the cultic studies literature. Hopefully, the information on benign groups will put some people’s minds at ease. As the director of Steamboats.com, a website dedicated to historic preservation, I once received a letter from a concerned mother questioning her son’s employment as a deckhand on the Delta Queen Steamboat. I assured her that it was most likely a positive experience for her son that would look good on his resumé.

Dr. Benjamin’s descriptions may bring similar peace of mind to friends and relatives of people who dabble in the benign groups he covers.

A Closer Look at the Rating Scales

The Anthony Typology, developed by Dick Anthony, analyzes a group on the scope of its beliefs, whether it is charismatic, and whether it is antagonistic toward the outside world. The Wilber Integral Model, developed by Ken Wilber, rates a group according to how controlling it is, and whether its philosophy has a rational or traditional basis. The Bonewits scale, developed by Isaac Bonewits, assigns a number between one (low danger) and ten (high danger) on fifteen traits, such as the leader’s(s’) claim of wisdom, the amount of wisdom attributed (blind followers), and rigidity of dogma. Bonewits rates on how much a group is interested in money and political power; as well as the common hallmarks of a dangerous cult: sexual abuse, censorship, endorsement of violence, paranoia, lack of sense of humor about itself, internal control of members, and surrender of will. The ratings are added up and divided by fifteen to come up with an average cult danger rating.

Dr. Benjamin describes each group, then rates each on the three scales, and follows with his rationalization for why he rated each group as he did. He admits that his ratings are purely subjective, based on his experiences. Individual researchers will certainly disagree with some of Dr. Benjamin’s ratings, and certainly the groups themselves will disagree if they have a bad rating.

One of the weaknesses of rating organizations is that it is difficult to see what is going on behind the scenes. A researcher would have to stumble into the inner circle of any group to find out what is really going on. Therefore, there is a danger of falsely giving a group a benign rating. Even a homeowners association or bridge club may have the potential to inflict extreme emotional, financial, or other abuses, which a casual observer may not notice. Also, it must be kept in mind that groups can change. They may reform themselves or turn sinister, based on who is in the group, and whether the system is ripe for abuse, or ready for healing. In addition, once a group has been stained by sexual or other violent forms of abuse, it may have a difficult time getting its reputation back. Therefore high ratings on the Sexual Manipulation and Endorsement of Violence scales need to be more heavily weighted to get an accurate picture of a group’s overall danger rating.

Another note is that it would be a mistake to apply the Bonewits scale to political groups, as Dr. Benjamin has in essays outside of this volume. All political groups would score high on several of the scales, such as Wisdom Claimed, Wisdom Credited, and Dogma; and certainly they would score high on the Wealth and Political Power scales. Since these five scales would be elevated, it would be unfair to compare the average of a political group’s rating to the average of a new age spiritual organization. To obtain a more accurate rating of political organizations, a researcher would need to remove those five items, and add five items to rate the group’s integrity. Does the group lie for political gain? This would say more about whether a political group is dangerous than if they want wealth. Needing money is built into the game of politics these days.

A Closer Look at the Author

In chapters two and three, Dr. Benjamin presents a collection of essays he wrote at the time he was going through his group encounters. The essays are presented in two sections, first the late 1990s and early 2000s; then the 1970s.

Dr. Benjamin took about fifteen years off in between to earn his Ph.D. in mathematics and establish himself as a college professor with a specialization in pure mathematics. He describes his academic pursuits as part of his spiritual search, since he spent years working on pure mathematics for several hours each morning as a meditation.

Dr. Benjamin’s essays in chapters two and three read like journal entries, written in the moment. Many of these entries begin when he is enamored with a new group he is exploring, then in a subsequent entry, he denounces the group and explains what he dislikes about it. He seems to have a cast iron stomach for unusual group experiences. Many ex-cult members and researchers may experience the gack factor (feeing repulsed) by some of Dr. Benjamin’s realizations as a naïve follower.

As an ex-member of an Eastern guru group, I have avoided all new age religious organizations except a very few. The Philosophical Research Society, founded by Manly Hall in 1934, was a short walk from where I lived in Los Angeles in the early 2000s. I attended many lectures, workshops, and even a tai chi class there with no adverse reactions. However, once in the late 1990s, I attended a house party put on by members of a group Dr. Benjamin would rate as mild. At one point, they got everyone’s attention to do a group meditation. Everyone joined hands in a circle in the living room. This was an unbearable trigger for me and I waited out in the front yard until the ceremony was over. In my experience, I would have found most of the situations Dr. Benjamin lived through as undesirable for myself.

Dr. Benjamin describes his deepest and most conflicted affiliation in chapter four: Encounters with Scientology. In a series of his characteristic journal-like essays, he reveals little-known details about the group, such as how they get people to join and what goes on in an auditing session. As a researcher, I never knew much about Scientology before, but the book has given me a substantial education on the group’s inner workings. Since Scientology is a highly secretive group, I believe this is one of the book’s greatest contributions.

One of the most terrifying aspects of Dr. Benjamin’s experience was the amount of money he invested in the various groups he joined. His non-cult friends and family must have found themselves exasperated trying to prevent him from wasting yet more of his hard-earned money chasing the next great thing.
Dr. Benjamin repeats a similar pattern in each group: he becomes intrigued, gets involved, gets hoodwinked for a sum of money, becomes disenchanted, and leaves. He discusses the financial hardships of group involvement quite extensively, which will be informative for seekers who are considering a similar path.

Publishing this book is a milestone for Dr. Benjamin, since it is the culmination of his nearly forty years of writing about alternative spiritual organizations. In essence, Dr. B. is an unapologetic cult-hopper, revealing in chapter five his disappointment with the Jewish religion of his ancestors and the loss of his father at the age of two as factors that may have led him to search for meaning through new age group involvement. He also admits that he joined particular groups after falling in love with women involved in the groups.

After describing and rating all of his group experiences, the book seems to point to the need for a creative non-fiction rendering. It would be refreshing to read a memoir by

Dr. Benjamin that goes in chronological order, offering selected scenes from his journey. He has already told us what he really thinks. Now all that is left to do is to show us the worlds he has discovered sans any further analysis.


Links of interest:

-Elliot's book is available at www.lulu.com

-My subversive interview with Elliot.

-Elliot's articles in the Integral World website.

A.C.Grayling vs. William Lane Craig debate on the problem of evil against God's existence

Ufological Theology: A preliminary reflection about the possible links between ufology and religion

Currently, I'm studying intensively the up-to-date scholarly literature in English and German about the Historical Jesus and the case for and against Jesus' Resurrection, and also the best literature on ufology.

On a intuitive level, I feel the UFO phenomenon is a missing link in the study of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Most scholars in religion (and scholars in other areas) are wholly ignorant of the literature about ufology, in part because there are a lot of books on ufology which are not serious and in part because pseudoskeptics and other atheistic charlatans and dogmatists have stigmatized this field in academy.

By the phrase "Ufological theology" I'll refer to the hypothesis according to which religion in general, and Biblical Christianity in particular, are closely linked to the UFO phenomenon, and can be only understood properly in the ufological context.

For the record, I have no idea whether this hypothesis is true or false. I'm going to publish this article just for the sake of posing ideas and letting the readers to think hard about these questions.

A key website which explores this UFO-BIBLE connection is this, and I suggest the readers to study the material there.

THE UFOLOGICAL THEOLOGY HYPOTHESIS:

This hypothesis argues that the origin of religion and Christianity is connected by the UFO Phenomenon. In the Bible, there are a lot of references about flying objects/lights which were interpreted as God, angels, etc. because the religious contexts and the lack of technological knowledge prevented the people of that time to realize the true nature of the phenomenon in question.

Let's to take some examples:

In the Bible, in the book of the Exodus, you can read:

"And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people." (13:21)

And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses (33:9)

In Nehemiah you can read: "Yet thou in thy manifold mercies for sookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go." (9:19)

It is obvious that the term "pillar" refers to some object with that form as seen by the people in that time. (The biblical writer used the concepts and terminology common in this time. The analogy of "clouds" is logical because in that time the only permanent objects seen in the sky by day are clouds, so the putative UFO in question would be compared with a cloud; and "fire" because by night the UFO in question was lighting).

Now, for people familiar with the ufology literature, UFOs with the form of "pillars" are well-known. Just examine carefully the following UFO pictures:

Now I ask you: Assuming for the argument's sake that all the above pictures are real (if they're not, it is irrelevant, because many reliable witnesses have observed objects like that), is not the term "pillar of cloud" (e.g. as a description of the object seen in the last picture) or "pillar of fire" (in the first and third pictures) a rather accurate description of what currently we would call cigarratte-shaped UFOs? Is it not argueably the same kind of phenomenon or object with different (and accurate!) descriptions?

Watch these videos:

















Note that by night or afternoon, the UFOs are lighting, and by day they tend to look just white or black. (If some or all of the above videos are real or fake is hard to say, but it is besides the point. There are a lot of witnesses around the world who have argued to have seen cigar-shaped or cylinder-shaped UFOs, and even members of the army and military groups have seen these objects. The above videos are just for the purposes of illustration of my point).

It seems to be a least possible that the Exodus (and other parts of the Bible) is actually describing an actual UFO phenomenon.

A key point here is to consider that Jesus' Second Coming will be (explicitly, by Jesus' own words) manifested in the sky, in the clouds:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew 24:30)

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. (Mark 13:26)

If the hypothesis we're commenting here is correct, then the correct interpretation of Jesus' Second Coming will be in the form of a massive UFO-like phenomenon, in which certain people will be elected (presumibly, in order to save them from the destruction of the Earth) and carried to other place (the "heaven" could refer to another planet or dimension where such people will be carried).

Thinking of Jesus literally flying like superman in the clouds is hard to believe; but thinking of him as a commander of a fleet of UFOs (angels?) coming in the sky, in the clouds, to save certain people (the spiritually more advanced people?) in order to save the human race from destruction (e.g. by nuclear war or a massive asteroid coming to the Earth) is less implausible, specially if we take into account the reality of UFOs and their consistent (putative) presence in all the books of the Bible.

The obvious objection against this hypothesis is that it assumes that UFOs are real and from extraterrestial origin, and this is not known to be true (or at least it is highly controversial).

The objection is right. But I think we can think of this hypothesis in terms of a conditional: IF the UFO phenomenon is real and from extraterrestial origin, THEN an ufological interpretation of the Biblical texts seems to be plausible and make sense, and at least it deserves serious consideration.

In any case, I have not idea of the true explanation of the UFO phenomenon and hence if the hypothesis of "ufological theology" has some actual merit.

Just think about this and other possibilities.

Edward Feser, Thomism and Intelligent Design (ID): An outsider's opinion

In his blog, philosopher Edward Feser has argued what he considers are the main reasons why Thomists are critic of intelligent design (or ID), and why Aquinas' Fifth way is incompatible with Paley's style design arguments.

This is a philosophical question of interest. This post assumes (for the argument's sake) the existence of God as understood in classical theism.

I'm an "outsider" in regards to Thomism and ID, so I'll summarize the point of disagreement as far I understand it:

Aquinas' fifth way assumes an immanent teleology which is radically at variance with ID's mechanistic conception of nature.

This implies that if Aquinas' metaphysics is right, ID's metaphysics is false and hence a non-starter (for the same reason, the reverse also would be true; if ID is true, Aquinas' metaphysics is false and the fifth way would be a non-starter).

The theological implication is this: Aquinas' fifth way leads to the God of the classical theism, while the "designer" of ID doesn't lead to such God. Therefore, Christians shouldn't use the design argument as an argument for the Christian God's existence.

This is as I understand the essential of the Thomism vs. ID debate.

Now, I have a question: Is essential to ID a mechanistic conception of nature? (Note that I'm not asking whether Paley or most contemporary ID's defenders assume a mechanistic conception of nature; what I'm asking is whether such mechanistic view is ESSENTIAL to ID).

Why couldn't the God of classical theism to create a teleological world as Thomists think AND additionally, in specific domains and for specific purposes (like the fine tuning of the universe or in biology in order to favour certain structures which favours the creation of humans) also to impose "from outside" a form of specified complexity which conforms to an independently given patter (which is Demski's criteria for ID)?

I see no reason to think that God (being omnipotent) cannot do that.

Particularly, assuming immanent teleology, I see no reason to think that God (which is a spiritual and wholly free onmipotent being) cannot decide to act in certain cases like an external designer or architect (e.g. in the case of the Universe's fine tuning) imposing such design wholly from "outside".

Granted, Thomists will reply that in such case, the design argument doesn't prove the full divine attributes of the designer. But this is besides the point, since most arguments of contemporary natural theology, individually considered, don't pretend to prove all of God's attributes as understood by classical theism. Most of such arguments prove some of God's attributes. (This is why most natural theologians present arguments for God's existence as a cumulative case). So, this objection is not fatal to design arguments.

Thomists will reply that the problem for ID is even worst: such design argument is not only incomplete to prove God's existence, but that it leads to a God or designer wholly different than the God of classical theism. But this objection assumes that the God of classical theism is incapable of acting like an external designer (which imposes from outside certain forms of specified complexity for specific divine purposes like the creation of human beings) IN ADDITION to acting as a creator of nature with immanent teleology (which is the basic premise of Aquinas' fifth way).

In other words, the objection seems to assume that the God of classical theism is caught in a dilemma: either he creates nature with the property of immanent teleology; or he creates through the external imposition of intelligence over a purely mechanistic and non-teleological nature.

I don't see any reson to think this dilemma is a true one, specially for God. In my opinion, God could:

1-Create nature with essentially teleological properties (in the full Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of teleology) and;

2-Create, from "outside" and for specific divine purposes (e.g. the creation of human beings on the planet Earth) certain designs (like the fine tuning of the Universe, or certain biological structures) which satisfies Demski' criteria of specified complexity which conforms to an independently given pattern.

In conclusion, I think intelligent design is not per se incompatible with Thomism; which is incompatible with Thomism are the metaphysical premises that as a matter of contigent (historical) fact, most ID's defeders (like Paley) have taken for granted; but such premises are not essential to ID; and therefore ID is not essentially incompatible with Aquinas' immanent teleology essential to the Fifth way.

Just an outsider's opinion.

Atheistic misdirections and fallacies in philosophy of religion: Michael Martin on the Kalam cosmological argument in his debate with Phil Fernandes

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 one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a 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)

Christopher Hitchens vs. William Lane Craig: Debate on the Existence of God

This is the debate between new atheist writer and journalist Christopher Hitchens and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.

Consider carefully each side of the debate and decide which one is the more sound, rational, plausible and coherent.

William Lane Craig lecture on Richard Dawkins entitled Dawkins Delusion

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.

Atheism in the United States of America: Are the views on atheists hold by most Americans ONLY the product of prejudice or bigotry?

 
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.

Intelligent design: Is it viable? Debate bewteen William Lane Craig vs. Francisco Ayala

Intelligent Design: Is It Viable? - Opening Arguments from Campus Crusade for Christ at IU on Vimeo.

Intelligent Design: Is It Viable? - Rebuttal Arguments from Campus Crusade for Christ at IU on Vimeo.

Intelligent Design: Is It Viable? - Closing Arguments from Campus Crusade for Christ at IU on Vimeo.

Intelligent Design: Is It Viable? - Question and Answer Session from Campus Crusade for Christ at IU on Vimeo.

Richard Carrier on Alex Rosemberg article The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality (Part 1)

Metaphysical naturalist Alex Rosemberg has exposed some of the actual implications of a consistently assumed metaphysical naturalism in his article The Disenchanted Naturalist' Guide to Reality.

As I've mentioned on other posts, metaphysical naturalists are very strange guys. What they have in common is atheism (the belief that God doesn't exist and strong hostility to everything related to spirituality, religion, etc.), intellectual submission to mainstream (orthodox) science; extreme credulity in the (transitory) scientific consensus; pseudo-skepticism (pathological disbelief in and urge to debunk any kind of unconventional scientific ideas or research program, specially of the ones that investigate phenomena incompatible with naturalism and materialism, like parapsychology and afterlife research). These traits are absolutely ESSENTIAL in every naturalist and pseudo-skeptic, and hence are definitory of them.

But, once agreed about these core aspects (no actual naturalist or pseudo-skeptic is intellectually free to disagree with them), naturalists will disagree about many things, and the comments on Rosemberg's article by fellows naturalists is a fine example of this.

In this post, I'll comment on Richard Carrier's objections to Rosemberg's arguments and conclusions. Given that Carrier has mentioned 8 objections, and each of them deserves a deep critical analysis, this post is only the first of a series of posts dealing with them.

Carrier's objections:

1-(Objection 1) I disagree that there are no meanings or purposes. Human brains evolved to be meaning and purpose generators. And as a result, we have generated many significant meanings and purposes, even a meaning of life and a purpose for living. These just aren’t “cosmic” meanings and purposes. They’re just the meanings and purposes we evolved (largely by accident) to want. But we still want them, and enjoy fulfilling them. It doesn’t matter how we came to be that way. And when we are sane and rational, we all agree the most desirable purpose of life, the “meaning” of life, is to live it, live it well, and pass it on to the next guy, preferably in better shape than you found it. Alex concludes his essay by claiming “purposes are ruled out of nature–biological, social, psychological,” but he never proves the latter, nor can he appeal to any science that has done so. Social purposes are simply a collection of psychological purposes. And psychological purposes are simply aims and goals, which are the consequence of motives, which are the consequence of desires, which science has actually confirmed are real and do exist, and actually have the effects we believe they do. More on that to come. But in short, to claim I have no motive for taking time out to write this, no purpose in mind in doing it, is simply retarded.

Carrier makes a distinction between human-generated purposes and meaning, and "cosmic" purposes and meaning. His point is that the latter don't exist, but the former do.

He defends, therefore, the existence of actual purposes and meaning in a limited sense. And he supports this contention with the following arguments:

1-Human brains evolved to be meaning and purpose generators

2-They’re just the meanings and purposes we evolved (largely by accident) to want

3-When we are sane and rational, we all agree the most desirable purpose of life, the “meaning” of life, is to live it, live it well, and pass it on to the next guy

Objections to Carrier's objection 1:

1-Carrier doesn't explain why the human brain evolved to be ACTUAL meaning and purpose generators, instead of purely ILLUSORY meaning and purpose generators. How does Carrier know the meaning and purposes generated by our brains are actually (ontologically) existing instead of merely fictional or illusory?

This is the key point of Rosemberg's paper: if naturalism is true, ACTUAL meaning and purposes don't exist, even in the limited sense defended by Carrier.

So, Carrier misunderstands Rosemberg's point and, additionally, begs the question against him.

In Rosemberg's words: "It’s all just the foresightless play of fermions and bosons producing, in us conspiracy-theorists, the illusion of purpose"

Rosemberg doesn't deny that we have or believe in purposes. His point is that such purposes are illusory, without any actual ontologically foundation, if naturalism is true.

2-Carrier claims that science has proved that psychological purposes are "real and do exist, and actually have the effects we believe they do" but he doesn't prove such assertion. And this assertion is argueably false if naturalism is true.

Naturalist Tom Clark (who also commented Rosemberg's paper) writes: "Science arguably provides the best answers to factual questions about what exists, but doesn’t itself have the resources or competence to answer (in the negative, as Rosenberg would have it) the “persistent questions” of human meaning, purpose and morality. To suppose science alone can answer such questions is indeed to be scientistic in the original and rightly pejorative sense" (emphasis in bold added)

Note that Clark doesn't include the human meaning, purpose and morality in the category of "factual questions" that science is competent to answer. In fact, Clark is explicit in that science doesn't itself have the resources or competence to answer these "persistent questions", and to think otherwise is to be scientistic in the pejorative sense of the word.

If it's true, then Carrier's claim is false and his position "scientistic".

Carrier's arguments for the actual (instead of merely illusory) existence of purposes and meaning in a naturalist worldview are so weak that they fail to convince even his fellows naturalists.

If Carrier's argument were "science-based" and meaning and purposes were proved to exist by science, then we would expect that naturalists (who are intellectually submitted to whatever idea is accepted by the authority of mainstream science) would agree with Carrier. And many of them DON'T.

3-Carrier's idea that "They’re just the meanings and purposes we evolved (largely by accident) to want" implies that we're not free to choose to want whatever purposes and meanings but only the ones determined by evolution.

So, our entire purpose-meaning generator is only a by-product of (largely by accident) evolution.

This belief forces Carrier to make a purely trivial, simplistic and crude justification of the "meaning" of life: "When we are sane and rational, we all agree the most desirable purpose of life, the “meaning” of life, is to live it, live it well, and pass it on to the next guy"(emphasis in black added)

Note that Carrier asserts that the "meaning" of life is to live it. But if it's true, then dogs, birds and bacteria satisfies a similar Carrier's criteria for "meaning", because all of these living organisms (specially complex organisms like mammals) try to "live" their lives (and "live them" well, getting pleasure, avoiding predators, dangers, etc.). And "reason" is not needed to do that.

Obviously it's an extremely simplistic and crude view of the meaning of life.

But Carrier even goes beyond, claiming that "psychological purposes are simply aims and goals, which are the consequence of motives, which are the consequence of desires"

Let's to make a diagram of this:

Desires---> motives ----> psychological purposes (aims and goals)

Desires cause motives, which in turns cause purposes. The ultimate cause are not the purposes themselves, but the desires (in Carrier's book, he adds that desires are caused by "emotions", so the ultimate cause of all this process is emotional)

Given that desires (and emotions) are subjective, and purposes depend on desires, then the conclusion follows: purposes are determined by purely subjective factors. And if it's true, what criteria are we going to apply to justify our and other people purposes?

From the point of view of the cause of the purposes, all of them are equal (that is, caused by emotions and desires). Why are your emotions and desires superior or inferior to mine?

Carrier might reply that emotions and desires that produces purposes consistent with biological survival are superior. And he's right, if by "superior" we understand "favourable to biological survival". But why are these purposes superior from an ontological, ethical and moral sense?

I think Carrier's position is very weak.

In other posts, I'll examine other of the Carrier's objections against Rosemberg's article.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Link of interest:

-My post on Richard Carrier's Blue Monkeys Flying Out of My Butt argument against God's existence.