Alex Rosenberg and the moral poverty of Secular Humanism, atheistic materialism and metaphysical naturalism

In his online essay "The Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality", atheist philosopher of science and biology Alex Rosenberg draws some interesting consequences and implications of a fully consistent metaphysical naturalistic worldview.

One of such implications, is the moral poverty of such worldview (that is, the inability of such worldview to account for objective moral values, and objective meaning and purposes in general).

I suggest you to read carefully Rosenberg's argument. Try to understand its premises, its coherence with the naturalistic-materialistic worldview and its implications. Rosenberg is one of the most respected philosophers of science and biology writing today. You'll realize that Rosenberg is right regarding the actual metaphysical naturalism's implications for morality and ethics. As a reflective naturalist, he's arrived to the same or similar conclusions that other naturalists like Richard Dawkins or Bertrand Russell have defended too.

According to professor Rosenberg: "If there is no purpose to life in general, biological or human for that matter, the question arises whether there is meaning in our individual lives, and if it is not there already, whether we can put it there. One source of meaning on which many have relied is the intrinsic value, in particular the moral value, of human life. People have also sought moral rules, codes, principles which are supposed to distinguish us from merely biological critters whose lives lack (as much) meaning or value (as ours). Besides morality as a source of meaning, value, or purpose, people have looked to consciousness, introspection, self-knowledge as a source of insight into what makes us more than the merely physical facts about us. Scientism must reject all of these straws that people have grasped, and it’s not hard to show why. Science has to be nihilistic about ethics and morality.

There is no room in a world where all the facts are fixed by physical facts for a set of free floating independently existing norms or values (or facts about them) that humans are uniquely equipped to discern and act upon. So, if scientism is to ground the core morality that every one (save some psychopaths and sociopaths) endorses, as the right morality, it’s going to face a serious explanatory problem. The only way all or most normal humans could have come to share a core morality is through selection on alternative moral codes or systems, a process that resulted in just one winning the evolutionary struggle and becoming “fixed” in the population. If our universally shared moral core were both the one selected for and also the right moral core, then the correlation of being right and being selected for couldn’t be a coincidence. Scientism doesn’t tolerate cosmic coincidences. Either our core morality is an adaptation because it is the right core morality or it’s the right core morality because it’s an adaptation, or it’s not right, but only feels right to us. It’s easy to show that neither of the first two alternatives is right. Just because there is strong selection for a moral norm is no reason to think it right. Think of the adaptational benefits of racist, xenophobic or patriarchal norms. You can’t justify morality by showing its Darwinian pedigree. That way lies the moral disaster of Social Spencerism (better but wrongly known as Social Darwinism). The other alternative—that our moral core was selected for because it was true, correct or right–is an equally far fetched idea. And in part for the same reasons. The process of natural selection is not in general good at filtering for true beliefs, only for ones hitherto convenient for our lines of descent. Think of folk physics, folk biology, and most of all folk psychology. Since natural selection has no foresight, we have no idea whether the moral core we now endorse will hold up, be selected for, over the long-term future of our species, if any.

This nihilistic blow is cushioned by the realization that Darwinian processes operating on our forbearers in the main selected for niceness! The core morality of cooperation, reciprocity and even altruism that was selected for in the environment of hunter-gatherers and early agrarians, continues to dominate our lives and social institutions. We may hope the environment of modern humans has not become different enough eventually to select against niceness. But we can’t invest our moral core with more meaning than this: it was a convenience, not for us as individuals, but for our genes. There is no meaning to be found in that conclusion." (Emphasis in blue added).

One important epistemological aspect of Rosenberg's insights is that "The process of natural selection is not in general good at filtering for true beliefs, only for ones hitherto convenient for our lines of descent". Natural selection doesn't selection true beliefs in virtue of them being true, but only beliefs that are useful for survival and reproduction (even if such useful beliefs are false. In other words, according to naturalism and natural selection, our beliefs will be selected only if they're are useful for reproduction, regardless of whether they're true or false).

This is why, as Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued, naturalism undercuts the warrant or justification of our beliefs, so naturalism is literally self-defeating. If naturalism is true, then our cognitive faculties hadn't been selected for their efficacy to produce true beliefs and discover the truth, but due to their efficacy in survival and reproduction.

Note that Plantinga is not saying that, given naturalism, our beliefs are false or fallible. What he's saying is that, given naturalism, we don't have any rational justification for thinking that our beliefs are true, even if they turn out to be true!. (This point is key, because atheistic naturalists consistently misrepresent and predictably misunderstand Plantinga's argument, which is more evidence that the cognitive faculties of hard-core atheists don't function properly. They're intellectually impaired to understand the argument properly. Rosenberg is an exception)

William Lane Craig summarizes Plantinga's argument in this short video:

But Rosenberg is not appealing to Plantinga and other Christian philosophers in order to arrive to the same conclusions. As a consistent naturalist, Rosenberg fully realizes which are the actual implications of naturalism. This proves that Plantinga's conclusion is not dependent on the Christian worldview. It's dependent on the premises of metaphysical naturalism.

But let's to forget Plantinga's argument for a while, and let's to assume (for the sake of charity) that naturalism is compatible with the rationality of our factual beliefs.

Even in such case, the intellectually devastating consequences of metaphysical naturalism are particularly obvious in the case of moral beliefs. As Rosenberg correctly notes: "There is no room in a world where all the facts are fixed by physical facts for a set of free floating independently existing norms or values (or facts about them) that humans are uniquely equipped to discern and act upon"

Given that moral values, propositions and norms are not physical, they cannot exist in a worldview which only accept physical realities. But even if, for the argument's sake, we accept the existence of such non-physical entities/properties in a naturalistic worldview, an obvious epistemological and ontological problem arises: How could our (physical) brain to discern and have knowledge such non-physical realm?

So a naturalist has a powerful ontological and epistemological reason to reject the existence of objective moral values, and embrace moral subjectivism... or, like in Rosenberg's case, to embrace nihilism regarding morality.

I personally think that, if naturalism were true, then moral subjectivism has to be true. This is the view that I'd openly defend if I were a naturalist.

As naturalist and atheist Keith Augustine has powerfully argued: "It is possible that moral laws have existed since the Big Bang, but that they could not manifest themselves until sentient beings arose. However, such a view implies that there is some element of purposefulness in the universe--that the universe was created with the evolution of sentient beings "in mind" (in the mind of a Creator?). To accept the existence of objective moral laws that have existed since the beginning of time is to believe that the evolution of sentient beings capable of moral reasoning (such as human beings) has somehow been predetermined or is inevitable, a belief that is contrary to naturalistic explanations of origins (such as evolution by natural selection) which maintain that sentient beings came into existence due to contingent, accidental circumstances... Ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The argument I am proposing is that there is no objective fact that genocide is morally wrong anymore than there is an objective fact that rock and roll is better than country music. Both statements, no matter how well agreed-upon by most people, merely express the opinion of the people who state them. They do not refer to some "state of the world", and that is exactly what an objectivist theory of ethics requires of ethical statements... given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the nonexistence of objective moral values."

I submit that the above Keith's argument is irrefutable... IF naturalism were true (so, if you accept naturalism, you're rationally forced to agree with Keith's conclusion). And I think that naturalists who try to avoid the above conclusions are being intentionally dishonest, ignorant or plainly stupid.

Likewise, if you have independent reasons to accept the objectivity of moral values, laws and duties (and consider, for example, that raping babies for fun is objectively wrong, not just a matter of opinion), then you have a powerful argument to reject metaphysical naturalism.

Think hard about it.

Extraordinary Knowing by Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer: A skeptical psychologist examines the evidence for psi

This book by the late skeptical psychologist Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer, Ph.D., is a must read for any truth seeker (specially honest, serious and open minded skeptical readers, not ideological pseudoskeptical dogmatists) interested in psi phenomena.

Watch a brief video by Dr.Mayer:

Sixto Paz Wells, a contemporary contactee and the Cosmic Plan. Ana Maria Polo confirms Paz's UFO programmed sightings

Following the series of posts on ufology and ufo phenomena, I'd like comment on Sixto Paz Wells (apparently, he's a relative of Orson Wells) who in 1974 had an encounter and communication with putative extraterrestrial beings. So, Paz is literally a (putative) "contactee".

What's interesting about Paz's case, and what makes a difference with other cases of so-called contactees that I've read, is that Paz has invited famous journalists and writers to be present in pre-programmed encounters with UFOs (The aliens suppossedly communicate to him an upcoming UFO sighting in a specific future date and specific location, and Sixto invites independent witnesses to be present in that date and location). So, the independent testimonies of such people have been used as objective evidence and validation for Paz's putative communication with the UFO's occupants.

For example, in 2009, Paz invited famous lawyer and TV presenter Ana Maria Polo (from the Telemundo's Tv program called Closed Case or Caso Cerrado) and journalists to witness a pre-programed encounter with UFOs in Chical, Peru:

Ana Maria Polo

The journalists were convinced that they saw UFOs, and even published the news in local and national newspapers, for example:

(If you understand Spanish, click at the image to enlarge)

The journalists even filmed on video the UFOs in order to record and document the evidence:

There is another interesting video where Sixto Paz, inmediately after arriving at the Pascua Island (La Isla de Pascua), shows an UFO in the sky in the presence of the airport's civil and military authorities (they couldn't identify the object, which is the crucial point of the video. You can watch the airport's authorities conceding that they can see the UFO but don't know what object it is. The fraud hypothesis in this case is pretty unlikely, since it's hard to think that Sixto or anyone else could fool the civil and military authorities in their own terrotory and in front of their faces). See the video here:

So, Paz's case of putative contact and communication with aliens is interesting, original and I think it's worth researching it rigurously in more detail. Unfortunately, there is not much information in English about him. Most information is in Spanish. I'm in the process of researching more deeply such case, with the help of some informed friends of Spain and South America.

In this moment, I don't have any definitive opinion about the authenticity or falsehood of Sixto Paz's claims. Let's see where the evidence leads us.

The following videos in English include an interview with Sixto Paz, and a documentary by him entitled "The Cosmic Plan" (information revealed to him by the putative aliens):

>

Real and fake UFO videos. Including some interesting NASA UFO footage.

I've been recently interested in ufo videos and literature. Regarding the former, with the current video technology, in many cases it's almost impossible to say when a UFO video is real or fake, since videos can be easily manipulated by computers. This tends to undermine the evidential value of most ufo videos, except the ones analyzed by experts and certified as authentic ones. You have to keep this in mind, while watching UFO videos on youtube and similar websites.

In any case, there are people who have recorded UFOs (not necessarily from "extraterrestrial" origin even though such possibility cannot be discarded) and published them in youtube. Some of these (apparently real videos) by lay/amateur people are:

The woman who's recorded the above apparently or putatively real ufo videos has this account in youtube.

The NASA has a series of putatively real UFO videos:

Some fake UFO videos:

Ciudad de las ideas debate: William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Douglas Devitt, David Wolpe: Does the Universe have a purpose?

In Mexico, atheists Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Matt Ridley debate theists William Lane Craig, Rabbi David Wolpe, and Douglas Geivett on the question "Does the Universe have a purpose?".

This is the first time that seasoned debater and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, the foremost defender of sophisticated philosophical arguments for God's existence, cross swords with zoologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, the format of the discussion didn't enable a long and detailed confrontation between them, only a brief exchange of comments.

I'd like to watch a formal debate between Craig and Dawkins about God's existence, but I doubt such debate will occur, since Dawkins fully knows that he won't win it (in fact, Dawkins has made public his desire of NOT debating Craig). I wish such debate, not because Dawkins's case is compelling (I think it's very weak), but because I'd like to see Dawkins' unsophisticated arguments being fully refuted and publicly exposed in front of the audience.

So, this is the first and probably the last time that you'll see Craig in the same public forum than Dawkins!

Enjoy.

PS.

Note that the topic is "Does the Universe have a purpose?". Keep in mind this crucial point, specially when you watch th atheists' case, specially Michael Shermer's arguments defending the idea that each of us has valid and good purposes in life (what the hell has that to do with the topic in question?)

Red herrings and straw men are the speciality of seasoned atheist apologists.

You'll be the judge.

Addendum:

In a recent internet communication, William Lane Craig comments on his meeting with Richard Dawkins, previous to the conference: "The reception was held at the house of Professor Andres Roemer, the conference organizer. It soon became clear that he is not your ordinary professor. He is a well-connected entrepreneur, media personality, and a big-time promoter in Mexico. His house is a three-story building facing a park, old on the outside and opulent on the inside (one whole wall open to the outdoors was covered with brilliant, orange marigolds). At the reception, Professor Roemer shocked me by telling me that Michio Kaku didn’t want to be part of our debate (he later described himself to me as “a waffler”), and so Richard Dawkins was on the panel instead! I could scarcely believe my ears! It just seemed unbelievable that Dawkins and I were going to finally cross swords in a public forum.

We were then taken by bus to a second reception back at the hotel. As I stood there, talking with other conference presenters, I saw Richard Dawkins come in. When he drew near, I extended my hand and introduced myself. I remarked, “I’m surprised to see that you’re on the panel.”

“And why not?” he replied.

“Well,” I said, “You’ve always refused to debate me.”

His tone suddenly became icy cold. “I don’t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.” At that, he turned away.

“Well, I hope we have a good discussion,” I said.

“I very much doubt it,” he retorted and walked off.

So my first encounter with Richard Dawkins was a pretty chilly one!"

Daniel Drasin video: I'm a skeptic

A five-minute text-to-animation short, in which a real scientist confronts a self-styled skeptic (more properly called, pseudo-skeptic, or also materialistic/naturalistic/atheistic dogmatist)

Read Daniel Drasin's updated and expanded version (2010) of his article "Zen... and the Art of Debunkery".

Enjoy.

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)