William F. Vallicella: The Maverick Philosopher on Daniel Dennett's dismissal of dualism

In one excellent blog entry, philosopher William F. Vallicella (The Maverick Philosopher) comments in the following Daniel Dennett's dismissal of dualism:

Dualism (the view that minds are composed of some nonphysical and utterly mysterious stuff) . . . [has]been relegated to the trash heap of history, along with alchemy and astrology. Unless you are also prepared to declare that the world is flat and the sun is a fiery chariot pulled by winged horses — unless, in other words, your defiance of modern science is quite complete — you won't find any place to stand and fight for these obsolete ideas.

Dr.Vallicella comments: "There is something intellectually dishonest about this passage since Dennett must know that it makes a travesty of the dualist's position. Yes, I know he studied under Gilbert Ryle and had phrases like "ghost in the machine" drummed into him at an impressionable age; but he is smart and well-connected and has had plenty of opportunity to be set straight. A substance dualist such as Descartes does not hold that minds are composed of some extraordinarily thin intangible stuff. The dualism is not a dualism of stuff-kinds, real stuff and spooky stuff. 'Substance' in 'substance dualism' does not refer to a special sort of ethereal stuff but to substances in the sense of individuals capable of independent existence whose whole essence consists in acts of thought, perception, imagination, feeling, and the like. Dennett is exploiting the equivocity of 'substance.'

Of course, it is very difficult for the materialistically minded to understand this because they cannot understand how anything could be real that is not material. This incapacity on their part leads them to construe the Cartesian dualist as talking about some sort of rarefied matter, some sort of spook stuff, a kind of immaterial matter if you will.

The incapacity in question also leads Dennett to the preposterous notion that a defender of dualism must stand in complete "defiance of modern science." (Note en passant that Descartes was among the founders of modern science.) But where in modern science is it established that everything that exists is material or physical in nature? Which branch of physics is competent to establish this meta-physical result? Observe the difference between the following two propositions:

1. Nothing in the physical world is in principle insusceptible of natural-scientific study.

2. Nothing is in principle insusceptible of natural-scientific study.

(1) is unobjectionable, but (2) presupposes that everything is physical. But that everything is physical is a metaphysical proposition that is neither entailed by any scientific result, nor presupposed by scientific investigation.

Since Dennett is the exact opposite of stupid, one has to conclude that he is either intellectually dishonest or simply in the grip of an ideology, the ideology of scientific naturalism. He seems to think that the substance dualist, with his supposed postulation of spook stuff, is in some sort of unscientific competition with a scientific approach to the mind. But he can make this blunder only by presupposing something obviously false, namely, that the progress of natural science has shown, or is showing, that everything is at bottom physical in nature."

I fully agree with Dr.Vallicella. It's simply implausible that an smart and seasoned professional philosopher like Dennett would actually believe in so silly positions and arguments against dualism. Even if dualism is false, you need to argue against its better defenders and in its most charitable formulation, not against straw men or easy targets.

So, the most reasonable position is to think that Dennett is driven by an ideology (the ideology of ontological materialism and metaphysical naturalism) and, fully knowing that most academic philosophers share his ideology, they won't critically examine his simplistic anti-dualistic arguments or dismissals.

And just for the record, there are exist some contemporary nonreligious philosophers who defend dualism. An example is philosopher Robert Almeder (philosophy professor in Georgia State University), who defends dualism and afterlife on empirical grounds:



Hear also this long interview with professor Almeder here.

Another contemporary philosopher who defends dualism is David Lund (see for example his book in defense of an immaterial self and his lastest book about the empirical evidence for an afterlife.).

Also, you'll find sophisticated defenses of dualism by leading philosophers of religion, like Alvin Plantinga:

So it's simply and demostrably false Dennett's assertion that "you won't find any place to stand and fight for these obsolete ideas" (this is another example of Dennett's misdirection and misrepresentation of the facts)

Links of interest:

-My post on Thomas Nagel and the cosmic authority problem

-Paper by physicist Eugene Wigner on the scientific case for dualism.

-Philosopher Chris Carter's paper on consciousness and dualism.

-My post on one of Daniel Dennett's arguments against dualism.

Interview with NDE researcher Dr. Peter Fenwick by Rene Jorgensen

Gotthard Barth and the critical views on Einstein: Was Einstein wrong? Was he a plagiarist?

According to this website, "Gotthard Barth was born February 4, 1913 in Reichenberg. [He graduated after only] five semesters in medicine and physics. After the war, [he took] 12 more semester at the University at Vienna in physics, mathematics and philosophy. Even as young student [he was a] strong critic of the law of thermodynamics.

Since 1948, involvement with the theory of relativity, lately criticism of relative mathematics and historical research into the begninnings of Einstein.

Since 1957, publisher of the magazine for basic physics, "Wissen im Werden". Physics publications" "Rational Physik, Energetische Waermetheorie, Einstein widerlegt (1954), Der gigantische Betrug mit Einstein (1987)". In philosophy: "Das Eine and das Werder", dialectric of the ancient Greeks. "Licht aus den Atomen", the dipole theory of light based on Greek dialectic was supposed to be published in 1984 by W. Wegener, publishers. Planned is "Rationale Ethik, Die Parasitentheorie". - Raum & Zeit, p. 70 (1989)"

I've been an admirer of Einstein for a long time. Recently, due in part to my own curiosity and in part to some debates I've had with Einstein's detractors, I've begun to study some literature which supports the idea that Einstein's theory of relativity is not correct.

My current opinion is that relativity theory is right and the evidence for it is good and strong.

But physicist Gotthard Barth has some arguments that undermine that view. Unfortunately, most articles by Barth are not in English. So far, I've only found this interesing article in English by Barth entitled EINSTEIN'S ERRORS. There, you can read some of his arguments.

Most criticisms of Einstein I've read are in regards to his supposed plagiarism (see for example this article or this other) as explained in this book:

But, personally, I'm more interested in whether the relativity theory is right or not (so, Einstein's supposed plagiarism is a less important topic for me.)

Lynne McTaggart: The Key to the Lost Symbol: the Power of Intention and noetic sciences

Noetic sciences writer Lynne McTaggart has written an interesting post on the Lost Symbol by Dan Brown: "Every so often my life takes such a fantastical turn that I am overwhelmed by the feeling that I am actually in the midst of a lucid dream, and that at any moment awakening will hand me back my ordinary world.

I had that feeling yesterday when I got an email from my editor informing me that me, my book The Intention Experiment, my website: www.theintentionexperiment.com and a good deal of my research were named, explained and used as a background source of a major plotline in Dan Brown’s new book.

I spent last night skimming the entire text of The Lost Symbol. For those of you who haven’t read it yet, the book centers around the recovery of kidnapped head of the Smithsonian Peter Solomon by Brown’s long-standing protagonist, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, and Solomon’s sister, Katherine.

Solomon is a ‘noetic scientist’, a 50-year-old black-haired woman who has written two popular books about the new science of consciousness and the bridge between science and spirituality, which ‘established her as a leader in this obscure field’.

Presently she does mind-over-matter research and is particularly interested in the power of group minds to change the physical world.

At certain points, the story began to sound strangely familiar. . . In the Cube, a secret laboratory in the basement of the Smithsonian Institute, filled with all sorts of state-of-the-art gadgetry, Katherine carries out her cutting-edge research — virtually all of which represent a composite of the personalities or science that have been the subject of my books or actual experiments.

Her sidekick is a ‘meta-analyst’ or computer number cruncher called Trish Dunne, which will tickle Brenda Dunne of the PEAR research (also mentioned in the book). Brown also pays homage to the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which will put a smile on the face of Marilyn Schlitz, its president and a real-live noetic scientist.

Much of The Lost Symbol concerns the link between modern physics and ancient wisdom. The ‘big idea’ in Dan Brown’s book is that science is only now providing evidence that ancient traditions have always espoused: that thought has a tangible power, enabling human beings to be creators of their own world.

In The Lost Symbol, Brown very graciously quoted me, mentioned my book by name and even gave out my website address:

“The shocking discovery, it seemed, paralleled the ancient spiritual belief in a ‘cosmic consciousness’—a vast coalescing of human intention that was actually capable of interacting with physical matter. Recently, studies in mass meditation and prayer had produced similar results in Random Event Generators, fueling the claim that human consciousness, as Noetic author Lynne McTaggart described it, was a substance outside the confines of the body . . . a highly ordered energy capable of changing the physical world. Katherine had been fascinated by McTaggart’s book The Intention Experiment, and her global, Web-based study—theintentionexperiment.com—aimed at discovering how human intention could affect the world.”

Brown makes it clear at the outside in a page entitled ‘FACT’, that “All rituals, science, artwork and monuments in this novel are real.”
Nevertheless, a few of the more traditional scientists or science writers are already taking a swing at Brown for his impossible inventions and so-called junk science.

Although I cannot speak for many of the other elements in the book — Freemasonry, ancient symbols, alchemy or hidden keys — virtually all of his comments about physics, consciousness research, mind-over-matter experiments and intention are based on fact – and indeed are enumerated in detail in either The Field or The Intention Experiment."

Visit McTaggart's website on The Intention Experiment.

Watch some videos by McTaggart:

Sam Parnia on the methodology of the AWARE study

Dinesh D'Souza and Life After Death: The Evidence

Author of several influential books on public policy, Dinesh D'Souza discussed his efforts researching the evidence for life-after-death. He drew from theories and trends in such fields as physics, biology, neuroscience, religion, psychology, and philosophy. While many of the scientists whose work he studied might be non-believers in an afterlife, he argued that he's put together "the big picture" which demonstrates the likely possibility of the survival of consciousness beyond death.

Noetic Sciences in 1998: Healing Studies

In this archival video from 1998, Dr. Marilyn Schlitz, Dr. Elisabeth Targ, and Dr. Garrett Yount describe pilot studies on distant healing and energy medicine

Bruce Lipton - The New Biology - Where Mind and Matter Meet

Recent advances in cellular science are heralding an important evolutionary turning point. For almost fifty years we have held the illusion that our health and fate were preprogrammed in our genes, a concept referred to as genetic determinacy. Though mass consciousness is currently imbued with the belief that the character of one's life is genetically predetermined, a radically new understanding is unfolding at the leading edge of science. Cellular biologists now recognize that the environment, the external universe and our internal physiology, and more importantly, our perception of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. This video will broadly review the molecular mechanisms by which environmental awareness interfaces genetic regulation and guides organismal evolution

Noetic Scientist Marilyn Schlitz on Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol character Katherine Solomon

Read Dr.Schlitz's article on Katherine Solomon resemblances to her here and my blog entry about it here.

Noetic Scientists Katherine Solomon and Marilyn Schlitz. From reality to a best selling novel

In her article, On Becoming a Fictional Character: Insights from a Comparison of Noetic Scientists Katherine Solomon and Marilyn Schlitz, real-life noetic scientist Marilyn Schlitz writes about her impressions on Dan Brown's fictional character Katherine Solomon (a noetic scientist) in his lastest book The Lost Symbol.

Schlitz writes: "As Noetic Scientists, Katherine and I share a mutual fascination with the powers and potentials of consciousness. We have both pursued careers well outside the mainstream and both live our work, as friends and family can attest.

As President/CEO of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, both Katherine and I know the value and the urgency of our studies, as well as the complexity of explaining our work to the world. For both of us, Noetic Science is a multidisciplinary approach that seeks to understand the role that consciousness plays in the physical world, and how understanding consciousness can lead to creative new solutions to age old problems. We have been inspired by breakthroughs that were sourced through intuition and inner knowing and expressed through reason and logic. We believe that consciousness matters, now and in the future!

Like Katherine, my career began at the ripe age of 19. And early on, my mentor was a neurophysiologist who introduced me to ancient Egyptian texts and modern scientific views of consciousness. As an undergraduate at Montieth College, Wayne State University, I read Newton, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, and Copernicus, as well as spiritualism, theosophy, parapsychology, and comparative religion, like Katherine, looking for ways to broker a paradigm shift for our modern age.

I began as an experimental parapsychologist, studying the interface of mind and matter. I published my first paper on remote viewing in 1979; this attracted members of the CIA/DIA team doing classified work on psychic phenomena. Years later I gained security clearance through my work in the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory at SAIC, a large government sponsored research site where I conducted research on mind over matter. While my work was never classified directly, I can easily stretch my imagination to that of Katherine's fictional story--her research hidden deep in a web of classified intelligence.

Throughout the past three decades, I conducted laboratory-based and clinical studies involving distant intention, prayer, altered states of consciousness, contemplative practice, subtle energies, and healing. Like the Noetic Sciences program in the Lost Symbol, my experimental research has included studies of distant intention on living systems, including microorganisms, mice, and human physiology. My research on distant mental influences on living systems (DMILS) has been replicated in laboratories around the world, moving it beyond fiction and into peer review journals.

I conducted RNG-PK experiments in the mid 1980's with Helmut Schmidt, the physicist who developed this research area. In our published report, we found that time that intention and attention appeared to impact the outcome of random event generators, or what can be thought of as electronic coin flippers. In particular, we found that meditation practitioners did better than the average population on shifting randomness. And the more practice, the better the results. I'm pleased to note that Katherine confirmed our findings.

Several years ago I convened the first international meeting of the global consciousness project at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Working with Roger Nelson who worked at the PEAR lab at Princeton, IONS has been the organizational sponsor of this work and its remarkable unfolding over the years. The network of random generators around the world has allowed us to extend our laboratory research into the field and to track the role of collective attention on the creation of order from randomness. The results are highly encouraging, though we have not yet exceeded fictional expectations.

As we have sought to gain a theoretical understanding of our Noetic Science data, my colleagues and I consulted experts in the area of quantum theory. I learned from the best, including Brian Josephson, Richard Feynman, Hans Peter Duerr, Roger Penrose, and Henry Stapp, among others. In addition to research on entanglement and nonlocality, I continue to track complexity, emergence, and string theory, research areas that have also been central to Katherine's studies.

Our laboratory at the Institute of Noetic Sciences includes a 2000 pound electromagnetically shielded room, which we now affectionately refer to as the "Cube." Two wealthy patrons donated funds to build our lab, believing we are on the verge of a breakthrough. In it, my colleague Dean Radin and I have conducted studies of intuition, gut reactions to distant emotional stimuli, order in randomness, the role of intention on water crystals, and the potential non-local nature of dual consciousness, all topics that have been considered in The Lost Symbol. I've published the results in my two main books and in many journal articles (just as Katherine has done). I've even presented this work at the Smithsonian Institute, including discussion of ancient lore about biofields and subtle energies. My team and I look forward to discussing our findings with Katherine and Robert when the dust settles.

Like Katherine, my work is dedicated to bridging science and ancient wisdom. It is at the interface of these two ways of knowing reality where we believe great breakthroughs lie. In our detailed study of consciousness transformation, we studied practitioners from 60 different transformative traditions, some ancient and some modern. Bringing the lens of science to these diverse practices, we identified the factors that stimulate, support, and sustain positive changes--while avoiding the pitfalls that seem to plague Mal'akh and his rigid fundamentalism.

IONS has sponsored research and conferences on the potential survival of consciousness after bodily death. We have studied crosscultural cosmologies of the after life, supported field research on the rainbow body, and collaborated with Ian Stevenson and others on reincarnation and mediumship. As I have written in several publications, the fact of our mortality and what happens when we die are critical issues as we seek a path to peace within ourselves and across cultures.

Both Katherine and I share a deep commitment to the positive unfolding of life on our planet. Like the final message in The Lost Symbol, I believe that human beings are poised on the threshold of a new age; Noetic Science may help lead the way. And, as Katherine mentions, we are grateful for the media relation's bump that the new book offers as we share the findings of the Noetic Sciences with the world."

Watch some videos on Schlitz's research:

Near death experience of Bob Woodruff on Larry King Live

Mystery of the Self, From Philosophy to Modern Day Science by San Pernia and Peter Fenwick

Horizon Research Foundation Presented:

Unravelling the Mystery of the Self - From Philosophy to Modern Day Science at Imperial College London, September 10, 2009.

The symposium consisted of an engaging discussions on the nature of the self by:

Dr Peter Fenwick, Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London and Dr Sam Parmia, Fellow in Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York.

Joining them for a panelist discussion was:

Dr Christopher French, Professor of psychology at Goldsmiths College, University of London, is head of their Anomalistic psychology Research Unit which he founded in the year 2000 and Dr. Joan LaRovere, a Consultant in Paediatric Intensive Care and Director of the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit at the Royal Brompton Hospital in London

Rene Jorgensen, philosophy of religion and near death experiences

Rene Jorgensen is a Philosopher of Religion who investigates the parallels between Near Death Experiences and Religion. Since his own Near Death Experience (NDE) in March of 2000, he has been studying the profound nature of the Near Death Experience in the context of Religion.

Rene is a member of the International Association for Near Death Studies, and he is author of Awakening After Life:

He is also both a contributor and consulting editor of the Journal of Near Death Studies and he has been interviewed as an expert on Near Death Experiences on countless radio shows and done speaking engagements all across North America.

Rene is the founder of NDE Light (www.NDELight.org), an organization set up to inform the public about Near Death Experiences and undertake research into this phenomenon.

Visit Rene's website and also the website of his book Awakening After Life.

Near Death Experience of Renee Pasarow

Renee Pasarow was as a teenager when she had a NDE after she became unconscious following an allergic food reaction. Her NDE is unusual because it contains mystical elements such as an encounter with and immersion into the Sacred Light.

Visit Pasarow's website here.

Ian McCormack: Former atheist - near death experience

Near Death Experiences: Personal testimonies and real-life stories

Near Death Experiences of Children by P.M.H. Atwater

P. M. H. Atwater, L.H.D., is one of the original researchers in the field of near-death studies, having begun her work in 1978. She is one of the very few top NDE researchers who have actually had an NDE. Her website is filled with very interesting NDE research information and articles of hers

Visit P.M.H. Atwater's website.

An Atheist Has A Near-Death Experience

Death Experiences: Stan Grof and Scott Eberle

The Noetic Universe by Dean Radin. Essential reading for the noetic sciences fans

The book "The Noetic Universe" by real-life noetic scientist Dean Radin, is a reprint of highly acclaimed book The Conscious Universe, to be published in the UK soon.

For this reprint, Dr.Radin wrote a new Preface, which is aimed to ride the wave of interest in noetic science as a result of Dan Brown's lastest best-selling book The Lost Symbol, which includes a fictional characther name Katherine Solomon who's a noetic scientist.

Radin is one of the world top noetic scientists, whose books are a must read for noetic sciences fans, general public and specialized scholars like philosophers and professional scientists.

If you want to watch some of Dean Radin's videos and audios, please visit this link in my blog.

For more information on Radin, visit his website and his blog.

For more information on noetic sciences, visit the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

A lecture on the lastest findings of noetic sciences by Dean Radin may be watched here:

Alvin Plantinga and the Modal Argument for Dualism

Alvin Plantinga is an American philosopher, currently the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He is known for his work in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion, and in particular for applying the methods of analytic philosophy to defend Christian belief.

Recently, he has written about philosophy of mind topics, especially in his paper Against Materialism.

In this clip, Plantinga argues for the ontological distinctness of mind and body on the basis of modal properties and the identity of indiscernibles (i.e. Leibniz's law).

Leibniz's law is a test for identity. According to it, for any entities x and y, if x and y are identical (they are really the same thing - there is only one thing you are talking about, not two), then any truth that applies to x will apply to y as well.

Therefore, if between x and y there is at least ONE difference, then you know that x and y are not identical. (Can you think about at least one difference between consciousness and the brain?)

Links o f interest:

-Eugene Wigner's paper on the scientific case for dualism.

-Chris Carter's paper on consciousness.

.Marco Biagini's paper on the scientific contradictions of materialism.

Stephen Braude: interviewed by John Rennie Short

Dr. Stephen Braude, Chair of UMBC's Department of Philosophy and author of "The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations " is interviewed by Dr. John Rennie Short.

Visit Dr.Braude's website, especially his articles section.

HIV=AIDS: Fact Or Fraud?

A documentary that question the theory that HIV causes AIDS, and present a different approach to the origin of AIDS

For more data critical of the conventional theory, see Henry Bauer's blog on AIDS.

The Great AIDS Debate (1994)

A controversial discussion about HIV/AIDS. Scientists participating here are: Joan Shenton, Peter Duesberg, Richard Horton, Mark Kaplan, Frederick Siegal, Steven Jonas, Robert Garry, James Scutero and Dara Welles.

Institute of Noetic Sciences - A World of Transformation

The institute's work is dedicated to transforming contemporary worldviews on the relationship between consciousness and matter. The implications of noetic empirical research and community education efforts extend far beyond the laboratory and the lecture hall. Indeed, our work speaks to a shift involving humanity's deepest knowing and understanding of ourselves and our universe.

-Website of the Institute of Noetic Sciences.

Noetic Sciences researcher Dean Radin on consciousness

Dean Radin - Where Science Meets Psi

Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), Katherine Solomon and The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown

In his lastest book "The Lost Symbol", Dan Brown writes about Katherine Solomon, a fictional character who's a scientist in the Institute of Noetic Sciences in California.

Robert Langdon, the well-known star of Brown's books, when was explained about the concept of noetic sciences, asserted "Sounds more like magic than science" (a typical reply by a conventional scholar when confronted with a new field like that of noetic science)

According to Dan Brown: "Katherine’s two books on Noetics had established her as a leader in this obscure field, but her most recent discoveries, when published, promised to make Noetic Science a topic of mainstream conversation around the world."

It reminds me of real-life noetic scientist Dean Radin, whose books "The Conscious Universe" and "Entangled Minds" have brought of field of noetic science to almost mainstream discussion (remember that Radin's first book was reviewed in leading scientific journal Nature. For a criticism of that biased review, see Nobel Prize-winner physicist Brain Josephson's commentary in this link)

As an example of real-life noetic science research, see this brief talk by Dean Radin on mind-matter interface (a key topic in noetic sciences):



Let's to return to to Brown's book. On Solomon character (and showing that Brown is informed about some the lastest findings of actual neotic sciences), he writes: "Deep within this building, in the darkness of the most remote recesses, was a small scientific laboratory unlike any other in the world. The recent breakthroughs Katherine had made here in the field of Noetic Science had ramifications across every discipline—from physics, to history, to philosophy, to religion. Soon everything will change, she thought"

"Experiments at facilities like the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) in California and the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR) had categorically proven that human thought, if properly focused, had the ability to affect and change physical mass. Their experiments were no “spoon-bending” parlor tricks, but rather highly controlled inquiries that all produced the same extraordinary result: our thoughts actually interacted with the physical world, whether or not we knew it, effecting change all the way down to the subatomic realm.

Mind over matter."

For more information on real-life mind-matter interaction research, see this talk by the Society of Scientific Exploration:





Brown continues " In 2001, in the hours following the horrifying events of September 11, the field of Noetic Science made a quantum leap forward. Four scientists discovered that as the frightened world came together and focused in shared grief on this single tragedy, the outputs of thirty-seven different Random Event Generators around the world suddenly became significantly less random. Somehow, the oneness of this shared experience, the coalescing of millions of minds, had affected the randomizing function of these machines, organizing their outputs and bringing order from chaos.

The shocking discovery, it seemed, paralleled the ancient spiritual belief in a “cosmic consciousness”—a vast coalescing of human intention that was actually capable of interacting with physical matter. Recently, studies in mass meditation and prayer had produced similar results in Random Event Generators, fueling the claim that human consciousness, as Noetic author Lynne McTaggart described it, was a substance outside the confines of the body . . . a highly ordered energy capable of changing the physical world. Katherine had been fascinated by McTaggart’s book The Intention Experiment, and her global, Web-based study— theintentionexperiment.com—aimed at discovering how human intention could affect the world. A handful of other progressive texts had also piqued Katherine’s interest."

For a commentary the Global Consciousness Project and the events of the 9/11, see Dean Radin's real noetic sciences book "Entangled Minds"(pp. 195-202), and these brief videos:





For a information on The Intention Experiment, watch this interview with Lynne McTaggart:



It's interesting to note that, even though Brown's book is "fictional", the character of scientist Katherine Solomon is based in actual, real-life noetic scientists like Dean Radin and others.

So, if you have interest in noetic sciences or are a fan of Brown's books, you'll enjoy his lastest one "The Lost Symbol":

David Macathur: Naturalism and skepticism

Philosopher David Macarthur (who is not a supernaturalist or paranormalist) has written an interesting paper entitled "Naturalism and Skepticism" where he argues that naturalism implies skepticism or, at least, the naturalist replies to the charge of skepticism are very weak. (Philosophical Skepticism, for the purposes of this post, is the view that we can't know any proposition or statement. It's doubt about the possiblity of knowledge. Don't confuse the term "skepticism" as used in this post, with pseudoskepticism, which is the ideological materialist view that the paranormal doesn't exist, the belief that scientific orthodoxy is almost always right (except when the ideas of orthodoxy put pressure on materialistic atheism, like the big bang theory which suggest a beggining of the universe and, therefore, the possibity of "God" as the uncaused cause or unmoved mover) and, as a corollary of these beliefs, the organized debunking as part of the apologetic strategy of atheistic materialism.)

Some philosophers, like Alvin Plantinga, have defended the view that naturalism + evolutionary theory entails skepticism (=doubt about any proposition). If naturalism is right and Darwinian evolution too, and given that the latter favors adaptative behaviour (not true beliefs), then we have no reason to think our cognitive faculties are reliable to produce authentic knowledge. And this includes our knowledge of naturalism itself; therefore, naturalism is self-defeating.

Charles Darwin shared the essence of Plantinga's argument when he wrote: "With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (Letter to William Graham, July 3rd, 1881)

A basic objection to Plantinga's argument has been that rationality and true beliefs have adaptative value beucause they help to survival; therefore, it's plausible that natural selection would favor true beliefs over false beliefs.

One of the problems with this objection (there are others) is that it's inconsistent with the materialistic view that consciousness is nonefficacious. If rationality and true beliefs (which only exist in the subjective mind of the man) have adaptative value, it's because they have some effect on biological survival; and therefore, they're causally efficacious to improve the chances of survival.

But if materialism is true, and consciousness and mental states are causally nonefficacious (only epiphenomena of neurological processes; mere "illusions"), then mental states and consciousness (i.e. illussions) couldn't cause any difference regarding adaptation and biological survival; because they have no actual causal efficacy on the real world. Therefore, the objection to Plantinga's argument is at variance with the premises of consistent materialism about the causal efficacy of consciousness and its contents.

There are other problems with the common objections to Darwin/Plantinga's argument, but it's a matter I'll discuss in another moment.

Professor Macarthur takes a different approach. His thesis doesn't appeal to the conjuntion of naturalism + evolutionary theory to argue against naturalism; rather, he appeals to the own premises of natualism and the actual practiques of "naturalists" to make his case.

He defines naturalism like this: "Naturalism, understood broadly as the view that the account of nature provided by the natural sciences is our only guide as to what genuinely, or unproblematically, exists and/or to what is genuinely, or unproblematically, known, is widely popular within contemporary analytic philosophy"

This is the view of many (perhaps, most) naturalists.

I've argued elsewhere that naturalism, when implying determinism, destroy normativity and therefore make impossible morality, science and rational inquiry, because these fields are guided by normative ideals. A similar objection is made by Macarthur "Belief is not simply an attitude of taking-true, however. If belief were merely taking-true then it could not be distinguished from other attitudes of taking-true such as assuming or hypothesizing or entertaining. Belief is distinguished from these attitudes by being governed by the norm of truth rather than, say, pragmatic norms. As David Velleman puts it: “An attitude’s identity as a belief depends on its being regulated in a way designed to make it track the truth.”65 To believe involves a commitment to its being the case that one’s truth-taking is regulated by what is in fact true"

Note that Macarthur correctly points out the normative character of beliefs. They're not simply "facts" of the world, but that they include a normative criterion, the norm of truth which regulates what we SHOULD believe or disbelieve given certain pieces of evidence or arguments.

But if truth-taking is regulated by a normative requirement (not by a fatalistic and deterministic natural process of cause-effect), then it entails some kind of freedom to choose between correct decisions (i.e choosing the truth instead of the falsehoods) and incorrect ones.

If you behaviour and thinking is fatalistically determined by physical causes beyond of your control, which is the role played by normativity there? Would you criticize a crazy man for making the wrong decision? Obviously not, but why? Beucase he's not free to discern and choose the correct from the incorrect. His behaviour is not up to him in the sense he can't freely do the correct decision. His behaviour is enterily and fatalistically determined by his insanity.

In the context of a consistent naturalist wordlview, free will and norms would be only illusions, with not actual ontological place in a natural world (if naturalism is true). But note that it includes norms that regulates rationality too and, therefore, the normative pressure to assume naturalism as a rational and true position. Therefore, naturalism cannot account easily or consistently for the normativity that should force us, rationally, to accept naturalism as the most plausible position. It gives us not actual reason (which is a normative epistemic notion) to accept naturalism as true.

It undermines its own epistemological foundation.

Social philosopher and libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises has a similar opinion about naturalism or materialism (understood broadly as a metaphysical position): "It is useless to argue with the supporters of a doctrine that merely establishes a program without indicating how it could be put into effect. What can be done and must be done is to disclose how its harbingers contradict themselves and what consequences must result from its consistent application.

If the emergence of every idea is to be dealt with as one deals with the emergence of all other natural events, it is no longer permissible to distinguish between true and false propositions. Then the theorems of Descartes are neither better nor worse than the bungling of Peter, a dull candidate for a degree, in his examination paper. The material factors cannot err. They have produced in the man Descartes co-ordinate geometry and in the man Peter something that his teacher, not enlightened by the gospel of materialism, considers as nonsense. But what entitles this teacher to sit in judgment upon nature? Who are the materialist philosophers to condemn what the material factors have produced in the bodies of the "idealistic" philosophers.

It would be useless for the materialists to point to pragmatism's distinction between what works and what does not work. For this distinction introduces into the chain of reasoning a factor that is foreign to the natural sciences, viz., finality. A doctrine or proposition works if conduct directed by it brings about the end aimed at. But the choice of the end is determined by ideas, is in itself a mental fact. So is also the judgment whether or not the end chosen has been attained. For consistent materialism it is not possible to distinguish between purposive action and merely vegetative, plant-like living.

Materialists think that their doctrine merely eliminates the distinction between what is morally good and morally bad. They fail to see that it no less wipes out any difference between what is true and what is untrue and thus deprives all mental acts of any meaning. If there stands between the "real things" of the external world and the mental acts nothing that could be looked upon as essentially different from the operation of the forces described by the traditional natural sciences, then we must put up with these mental phenomena in the same way as we respond to natural events. For a doctrine asserting that thoughts are in the same relation to the brain in which gall is to the liver, it is not more permissible to distinguish between true and untrue ideas than between true and untrue gall." (The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science)

The consequences that must result from a rigurously consistent application of materialism and naturalism have been discussed in many parts of my blog, for example in this post on "Secular Humanism" (the ethical system logically implied in naturalism and materialism).

Read the paper of Macarthur and draw your own conclusions.

Links of interest:

-David Macarthur's paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"

-Alvin Plantinga's paper "Evolution and Naturalism"

Anthony Peake - Is There Life After Death?