Richard Lewontin: Atheist irrationalism and the materialistic and naturalistic faith

Readers of my blog know that I've presented a lot of evidence for the irrationality of atheistic, pseudo-skeptical and naturalistic thinkers, and for the philosophical, spiritual and psychological motivation of such irrationalism (an example of a masterpiece on atheist irrationality is this). This is based in part in an animus, hostility and resentment against the idea of God, spirituality and the afterlife (and therefore, against religious and spiritual persons, i.e. most people on Earth, including you) and in part in wishful thinking in favor of atheism and naturalism. They WANT atheism and naturalism to be true, and this colors the interpretation of the evidence that they "examine".

The above is not my personal opinion, but something admitted explicitly by some naturalists themselves (see for example my post on Thomas Nagel and other posts in this blog), so you can check it by yourself.

In essence, the naturalistic (and therefore, the pseudo-skeptical) position is based, in large part, ON FAITH. Most naturalists don't want admit that, because they want to see themselves as "rational" individuals, so finding that their beliefs are in large part based on faith, prejudices and wishful thinking cause in them a very strong and powerful cognitive dissonance and emotional disconfort, that they try to avoid by any possible means. They need to believe that their worldview is rational and evidence-based.

But many naturalists are not afraid of making explicit their prejudices and bias, and they concede that their position is based on certain prejudices and commitments in favor of materialism (prejudices that are NOT based on evidence, but on the contrary are the necessary conditions to produce evidence for materialism). As an example of this, see this post.

Another example of this is the following concession by Darwinian biologist Richard Lewontin. Please, read it carefully, objectively and critically and draw your conclusions:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patently absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.... It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door (quoted by J. Budziszewski in "The Second Tablet Project", First Things. June/July 2002. Emphasis in blue added)

I ask you: Do you think this is the position of a rational seeker for the truth? A seeker for the truth follows the evidence and argument where they lead, not assume "prior commitments" which determine, in advance, the evidence that he'll find.

Perhaps Lewontin's monumental faith in the "absolute" character of materialism will make him to uncritically accept and swallow whatever scientific "just-so-stories", absurdities or unsubstantiated claims, but I doubt any rational person will agree with that. If mainstream scientists defend falsehoods, absurdities, fallacies or irrationalities, then worst for them. A rational person won't accept any fallacy or irrationality just because most scientists defend or believe in it (unless such "rational" person be unable to think for himself and be intellectually submitted to the authority of the scientific orthodoxy or consensus).

Lewontin's faith reveals that he (and his fellows naturalists and "secular humanists") are not actual and real free thinkers. They're not free from the fallacies, absurdities, irrationalities, or falsehoods of materialism, naturalism and secular humanism. They're intellectually submitted to the authority of mainstream scientists and to the scientific consensus of a certain period of history. The "free thinking" slogan is a pure rhetorical label, which actually amounts to a "freedom" from religion or religious ideas alone, not an actual and real free thinking which includes intellectual freedom from any dogma or authority (including from secular and naturalistic dogmas and authorities).

On the other hand, note Lewontin's irrational and question-begging implications of his position. If you have an a priori adherence to materialism and your concepts are based on such adherence, then obviously you'll never look for and find evidence for the supernatural, since that all the evidence will be interpreted in terms of materialistic concepts ALONE.

It's like to wearing blue glasses (which only enable you to see any object in blue color) and concluding from there that "everything is blue and there is not evidence for anything of any other color". But how the hell are you going to "see" objects of any other colour if your glasses only enable you to see blue objects or any other object in a blue way? Your a priori commitments preclude, in advance, the existence of any other color and therefore the evidence for such objects.

Try to explain this point to a 8 year old boy and he'll understand it. But many materialistic and naturalistic "thinkers" cannot see that they're begging the question, assuming what needs to be proved.

Instead of proving that materialism and naturalism are true, smart pseudo-skeptics ASSUME that it's true, and interpret the evidence in accordance with that assumption. You can see this in specific cases:

If you assume that materialism and naturalism are true, then paranormal phenomena don't exist or, at best, are very improbable and "extraordinary". This is why skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes the evidence for ESP meets the conventional standards of science (the same standards used to support naturalism!), but given his "a priori adherence" to materialism, he considers such evidence insufficient because the claim in question is "extraordinary"

The naturalist deludes himself thinking that he's rational in disbelieving the evidence for ESP, wituhout realizing that his disbelief is based in the implicit naturalistic assumption that such phenomena don't exist or are improbable (and in the materialistic interpretation of the evidence for mind-body correlation which, if true, and being based on materialistic interpretations, obviously precludes the existence of the paranormal)

You can try to explain this to him and he won't get the point. He actually believes that the evidence favors materialism, without realizing, how argues Lewontin, that he is being " forced by (an) a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations"

Obviously, if your prejudices create an "apparatus of investigation and concepts" that only produces material explanations, how are you going to find, interpret and accept (with such apparatus) evidence for non-material phenomena (provided they exist)?

The a priori adherence to material causes implies that the materialist will look for and find and (more importantly) interpret the evidence ONLY in terms of material causes (materialism).

This is why the mind-body correlation is interpreted by materialists only in terms of mind-body (ontological) dependence (i.e. the production hypothesis), and but never in terms of other mind-body theories (which are precluded by the "apparatus of investigation and concepts" implied by the prior commitment to naturalism and therefore implying a priori the impossibility, or extreme improbability, of other mind-body theories like substance dualism).

Don't try to argue this with a materialist or naturalist, because he will be simply intellectually unable (or unwilling, if he's dishonest) to grasp the point. His mental framework (or "a priori commitments" and "concepts") allows to pass as valid or sound arguments and evidence only when they're consistent with naturalism. So you're basically wasting your time with these individuals. If you press the point, you'll only get angry replies, irrelevancies, straw men, debating fallacies (e.g. "your position has the same flaw") and other irrationalities. You cannot use logic and reason with ideologues and dogmatists.

A CRUDE ANALOGY:

Perhaps my arguments have not been clear so far (even though I think most of you have grasp the point, because Lewontin's concession is clear enough). So, I'll use a crude analogy which is useful to make the point clearer and a hint of which I mentioned above.

Imagine that you're trying to convince someone who wears blue glasses that your hat is red.

He'll argue like this: "The evidence shows that everything is blue, and if you pretend that your hat is red, you need to give me extraordinary evidence for such ridiculous extraordinary claim. Your speculations about my blue glasses are a red herring. Show me the evidence, the RED FACTS and I'll accept them"

Note what happen if in the above example you change "blue" by "material" (or natural). You'll recognize the typical mode of argumentation of naturalists and pseudo-skeptics, and discover the secret of their philosophical self-delusion and debunking efforts against psi and afterlife research.

It's important to know in depth the exact mode in which such self-delusion works for pseudo-skeptics (most of them don't realize that they're self-deluded. They sincerely believe they're being rational).

If you try to argue that your hat has been tested by scientists who recognize that it is red, the "blue glasses guy" will reply like this:

1-Mainstream scientists disagree and think everything is blue. If you're right, why haven't you convinced mainstream science? (smartly, he'll intentionally omit that "mainstream scientists" wear blue glasses. If you bring this point to the discussion, he'll accuse you of commiting a red herring fallacy. This is clearly fallacious but very useful as a tool for propaganda and self-delusion to avoid cognitive dissonance)

2-He'll say "it's not impossible" that your hat is blue, only that it appears to be "red" for some people. So it is not red after all.

3-He'll say that you're delusional and this is why you see the hat as red.

4-He'll say that your senses are fallible, so it's "possible" that your hat is not red after all.

5-If the evidence exists and he cannot dismiss it, he'll say the evidence is not sufficient, because the claim "The hat is red" is extraordinary (in the context of a world where everything is assumed to be blue), so he needs extraordinary evidence (he NEVER will specifiy in advance that would count as extraordinary evidence for him. This point is strategically essential, since that if he specifies the criteria in advance, he's at risk of being refuted by new evidence. He needs this trick as an a posteriori rationalization of why the evidence, whatever it is, is and always will be insufficient for him)

Note that all of these speculations are ridiculous and silly, but for a pseudo-skeptic trapped in blue glasses, they seem to be perfectly "rational", because after he's convinced that "everything is blue", so almost any other explanation or speculation dismissing the existence of a "red hat" has to be true (or at least, is antecedently more probable to be true than an actual red hat).

Personally, I consider these ideologues as people unworthy of intellectual respect. While many of us are trying to find the truth examining all the sides, making efforts to be objective and fair in the evaluation of the evidence, these ideologues (based on their "prior commitments and concepts", "apparatus of investigation" which favors materialism, and online "defense of a naturalistic worldivew") try to suppress and debunk the research and the evidence in order to keep their FAITH protected from refutation.

This is an irrational and intellectually dishonest ideology (which forces the evidence to be consistent with naturalism alone), psychologically, socially anbd morally destructive (see for example the evidence in this post), based on a purely negative, anti-spiritual agenda.

I think the future will consider these ideologues as some of the world's greastest suppressors of knowledge, frauds and dogmatists of the human history.

Dean Radin Google Talk Lecture: Science and the taboo of psi

See Radin's recent post on the psi taboo in action.

Science and out of body experiences by physicist Dr Thomas Campbell

Physicist and author Thomas Campbell giving a keynote speech at the Monroe Institute's 22nd Professional Seminar.

Campbell was one of the original consciousness explorers at The Monroe Institute (TMI) in Virginia in the 1970s and the explorer identified as "TC Physicist" in Bob Monroe's book Far Journeys. Campbell, working alongside electrical engineer Dennis Mennerich, discovered what is now known as Hemi-Sync, the binaural-beat approach to inner exploration that came to be almost synonymous with TMI.

As Bob Monroe's protégé, Campbell worked in the TMI lab and participated in explorer sessions as a subject. He was one of the first trainers and finished his tenure at TMI as an advisory-board member.

Using his mastery of the out-of-body experience as a springboard, he dedicated his research to discovering the outer boundaries, inner workings, and causal dynamics of the larger reality system. In February of 2003, Campbell published the My Big TOE trilogy, which represents the results and conclusions of his scientific exploration of the nature of existence. This overarching model of reality, mind, and consciousness merges physics with metaphysics, explains the paranormal as well as the normal, places spirituality within a scientific context, and provides direction for those wishing to personally experience an expanded awareness of All That Is.

My Big TOE speaks to each individual reader about his or her innate capabilities. Readers will learn to appreciate that their human potential stretches far beyond the limitations of the physical universe. The acronym TOE is a standard term in the physics community that stands for Theory Of Everything and has been the Holy Grail of that community for fifty years. My Big TOE delivers the solution to that scientific quest at the laymans level with precision and clarity.

Interview with writer Alan Roebuck on atheism, materialism and naturalism

This is an interview with writer Alan Roebuck on several topics, including atheism, naturalism and materialism. Roebuck has published the article "How to respond to a supercilious atheist" which has caused a lot of controversy on the internet, so I've decided to ask him about these matters in more detail. I thank Alan for accepting this interview. Enjoy.

1-Alan, tell us something about your background.

I’ve lived in Southern California my whole life, attending UCLA and graduating with degrees in physics and mathematics. I was raised in a politically and religiously liberal environment at home, school and church but although I was basically a liberal, I always at least sensed that there was something wrong with the generally-accepted ways of thinking. In my 20’s, partly as a result of having my first real job teaching mathematics, I began—for the first time—seriously to explore the world of ideas, and the result was that I began consciously rejecting the ideas of the left. This process has taken a long time (more than 20 years), because the thinking of the left has permeated all parts of Western Civilization, but I am now politically a traditionalist conservative and attend a creedal (i.e., faithful to the Reformation) Reformed church.

2-You have published an online articled entitled "How to respond to a supercilious atheist" which has caused a lot of controversy. What did motivate you to write that article?

I observe that the “evangelical atheists,” the ones trying to convert people, claim there is no evidence for God. They say this, not because there is no evidence, but because they radically misinterpret the evidence, which exists in great volume. And they misinterpret it because their basic philosophical beliefs about how reality operates, their presuppositions, are materialistic. In other words, they presuppose, but do not prove, that matter is all that exists, and therefore miracles and the supernatural don’t exist. I wanted to point out this basic flaw in their thinking.

No atheist that I am aware of has publicly responded to this basic point by attempting to justify his premise of materialism. Obviously there exist philosophically knowledgeable atheists who have defended materialism, but there are very few of them. Most evangelical atheists just assume materialism, and then assume they have defeated theism.

3-As you know, recently the "New Atheist" movement has received a lot of publicity. Do you think this movement has been positive to raise the intellectual level of discussion about the existence of God?

The New Atheists have stimulated Christians to write several good books defending theism and pointing out the intellectual deficiencies of the organized evangelical atheist movement. There are many good arguments for God, but most people are not even aware that they exist, so the New Atheists have indirectly benefited theism by forcing theists to make their case more strongly. In general, the level of public intellectual discourse in America and the West is very low; good discussions are generally relegated to some parts of academia and a few blogs, and so John Q. Public generally thinks that the deep questions of life (about God, morality, death, virtue, sex, and so on) are either unknowable or else have been answered skeptically and atheistically for all time by unknown sages. The more we can bring discussion out in the open, the better.

4-Atheist philosopher Julian Baggini wrote an online article entitled "The New Atheist Movement is destructive", and other atheist philosophers like Michael Ruse have a similar complain about the New Atheism. Do you think that, from a social point of view, the New Atheist movement is mostly negative?

I haven’t read Baggini’s essay, but atheism, by definition, is a negative agenda because it opposes belief in God. Some atheists just want to be left alone to disbelieve, but the aggressive evangelical atheists also have a positive agenda of replacing God with some other authority, typically science. But since an atheistic worldview cannot have any authoritative answers to the big questions of life, and indeed normal human functioning is impossible without constantly at least alluding to what goes beyond the mundane and the physical, atheism is radically inconsistent with any decently-functioning human society. People naturally find themselves using words that refer to salvation, worship, design and purpose in the cosmos, and so on. Atheism thus declares an important part of normal human life to be unreal.

5-Most contemporary atheists believe in a worldview known as metaphysical naturalism or scientific materialism. They claim that such a worldview is the only one supported by the evidence of all the sciences. What arguments would you present against the naturalistic worldview?

I have made an argument against naturalism in my essay “The Scientific Leftists of the Center for Inquiry,” but the basic reason materialistic naturalism fails is that it cannot account for many obvious features of reality. That is, many obvious features of reality are impossible under materialism. Consciousness, for example is obviously not material, that is, it is not made of matter, it is not a material event, and it is not a property of matter. Consciousness may be correlated with brain activity (a material event), but it is not the same as brain activity. And consciousness is not a property of matter because it cannot be measured: We can define a unit of length or of mass, but a unit of consciousness cannot exist. Therefore consciousness is not a measurable property of matter. Justifying these intuitively obvious facts about consciousness takes some effort and sophistication, but the result is what everyone knows but some wish to deny: consciousness is not material. And since consciousness obviously exists, matter is not all that exists.

Some materialists are so perverted that they actually assert that consciousness does not exist. They say this because it is necessary in order for their worldview to have a chance of being valid. But they’re obviously wrong.

Naturalism also is self-refuting, and therefore necessarily false. It claims that all knowledge must be empirically-based, but it is impossible to use empirical evidence to prove naturalism itself. Therefore, by its own standards, naturalism is false.

6-Do you think that naturalism and secular humanism provide a solid basis for morality, moral behaviour, moral motivation and moral responsibility? I ask you this, because one of the core aspects of naturalism is "determinism", the view that all the physical phenomena (including cerebral processes and human behaviour) are fully determined by a causal chain ruled by impersonal natural laws. But if it's true, then how could a person to freely choose moral behaviour over the immoral ones? And how does a naturalist explain moral responsibility in that context?

Obviously a materialist can be morally good, or at least as morally good as a theist. But the most important part of morality as an intellectual system with integrity is not what people should do, but why they should do it. All people who are not demented can agree on the basic moral rules: don’t murder, don’t steal, keep your word, etc. The most important question is, why should I obey these rules? Any theory that cannot give a good answer to this question cannot provide a basis for society’s morals.

Materialism can only give three possible answers to the question “Why should I be morally good?” The possible answers are: “There is no reason; you just should,” or “Because a human authority says so,” or “In order for there to be good consequences.”

Answer # 1 is obviously inadequate. Answer # 2 ultimately means that morality is whatever the strongest party says it is, which we recognize intuitively to be incorrect. And answer # 3 is no answer at all until we agree on which consequences are good, which means that it does not answer the question. For example, if you say “Thou shalt not murder because murder is bad for society,” what do you say to the person who says “I don’t care about society”? All the materialist can say is “You just should,” which is not an answer.

Materialists like to say that morality evolved. But this explains nothing. That we should obey the moral law cannot come into existence by evolution, because a moral imperative is a non-physical thing, and non-physical things cannot come into existence by physical evolution.

Morality only works if it proceeds from an authority. And if this authority is not man, it can only be God, which is impossible under materialism. Therefore materialism ultimately means that human might makes right. Since there can be benevolent despotism, this system sometimes works, for a while. But normal people generally do not respect a morality that is purely a human convention.

The philosophical problem of free will is not one I have fully worked out to my satisfaction. I just observe that man obviously does have free will in the normal sense of the word: he can choose what he will do. Saying that man’s actions are, in some ultimate sense, determined by impersonal natural law is, it seems to me, unnecessary at best and false at worst. Morality deals with the practical, and man has practical free will.

7-Do you think that consciousness (subjectivity, mental phenomena, rationality, qualia) is compatible with materialism, physicalism and naturalism?

Certainly not, as discussed in my answer to question 5.

8-Dawkins has developed an argument for atheism that some consider a masterpiece of atheist thinking. Roughly, the argument says that God cannot be the explanation of the complexity of the universe, because postulating such designer immediately raises the larger the question of "Who designed the designer". And in addition, Darwinian theory of evolution explains the appearance of design in the world, so we have a powerful reason to think that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

Dawkins’s argument is the little brother of a classical argument against God: “If God made the universe, then who made God?” To be more precise, this argument attempts to rebut any argument for God based on the idea that the universe requires a creator. This rebuttal is invalid, however, because we do not claim that everything requires a creator. Only things that have not always existed or, at a more sophisticated level, things that exist only contingently, require a creator. Since we have no evidence that God came into existence, or that His existence is contingent, God does not require a creator. There must, in fact, be something that is eternal because otherwise, if everything came into being, then there would have been a time when absolutely nothing existed. But it is impossible for anything to arise out of nothing. So if anything exists, something is eternal. This rebuts the atheist’s rebuttal.

(One can make a similar but more sophisticated argument that it is impossible for everything to exist only contingently, in which case there must be something whose existence is necessary.)
The same rebuttal applies to Dawkins’s argument. Only something that came into existence requires a designer. “Designer,” in fact, is pretty much the same as “creator.” Since God did not come into existence, He requires no designer.

As for Darwinism explaining the appearance of design, it only does so if Darwinism is a true description of the development of life. If the Darwinian mechanism cannot produce all of the appearance of design that we see around us, then it does not explain (i.e., account for) life. If the process to which Darwinism refers is actually capable of explaining all of life, then this is indeed powerful (but not decisive) evidence against God. But if it is not, then the challenge to theism fails. And I would say that Darwinism’s mechanism cannot account for all of life, as I argue here.

9-Perhaps the strongest argument for atheism and against Christian theism is the "problem of evil". This argument says that if God is all-powerful and all-good, he wouldn't allow the existence of evils and unnecessary suffering in the world. However, it's a fact that evils and unnecessary suffering exists; therefore God doesn't exist. Do you think it's a good argument for atheism?

The problem of evil, as an argument against God, is emotionally strong but philosophically and theologically weak. Stripped down to its essence, the argument runs like this:

Major Premise: If God exists, bad does not exist

Minor Premise: Bad exists

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

The major premise is usually stated in the way you said it: “God, if He existed, would be all-powerful and all-good.” But “all powerful,” as theists define it, does not mean “capable of doing anything.” It means “capable of doing anything that can be done, and that does not violate God’s nature.” And “all-good” does not mean “only doing what atheists judge to be good.”

Seen in this light, this argument against God is obviously not valid. God is not required only to do or permit things of which atheists (or other people) approve.

10-Another argument by atheists is methodological. It says that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", so claiming the existence of a supernatural being requires an extraordinary burden of proof that no theist has ever met.

This is another example of sloppy thinking. First, how do you know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? And how do you identify a claim or evidence as being “extraordinary?” The principle “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is just an ad hoc assertion that has no authority, and a very vague assertion at that. We judge every claim, extraordinary or not, by clarifying what the claim is, and then gathering and examining the evidence. The claim that God exists is more difficult to judge than more mundane matters, but it does not differ in kind from other claims.

The atheist’s real problem, as discussed above, is that usually he arbitrarily declares that the evidence for God is invalid because it is inconsistent with his philosophical materialism.

11-As a rule, atheistic materialists consider themselves scientific empiricists. They argue that the empirical scientific method is the only way we can know the real world. And that method doesn't provide any evidence at all for God's existence. So it's likely that God doesn't exist. What do you think about this argument?

This is circular reasoning. Science only deals with the material world, and so any non-material reality would be known in non-scientific ways, although science could shed light on miracles that involve the material world. The atheist’s argument here is like a blind man declaring that sight does not occur because he never sees anything. People who talk this way are simply assuming (not proving by examining the evidence) that the non-material does not exist, and then claiming that they never see evidence for it.

And note that my example says sight does not occur. A blind man can detect light, because it is detectable with scientific instruments that he can use. But what the blind man cannot experience is sight, which is a phenomenon of the mind.

12-In your opinion, which are the best arguments for the existence of God?

Arguments for God are highly subjective in the sense that what one man finds utterly compelling another finds worthless. I think that some arguments should compel people to believe, but belief does have a subjective element. So before we talk about proving God, we would have to consider the criteria we use to judge whether God exists. As I indicated above, most atheists decide the issue before they examine the evidence, by assuming a worldview in which no god is possible.
We also have to confront the issue of proving that some sort of god exists versus proving that it is the God of the Bible. Proving the latter is more complicated than proving former, and I will restrict myself mostly to the former.

Having said that, the basic argument for God is that some facts of reality that we experience every day and that are undeniable real cannot be accounted for unless God exists. Life, for example, is so common that we take its existence for granted, but life cannot originate out of non-life without supernatural, personal, intelligent intervention. And since consciousness is non-physical, it must have originated non-physically, by deliberate intelligent design.
Similarly, the existence of objective, dependable rules of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for out of mere matter. These things seem so obvious that many people take them for granted as necessary features of reality, but it turns out to be impossible for these to exist unless there is a supernatural intelligent being.

13-Recently, Christian philosopher James Spiegel published a book entitled "The Making of an atheist", where he considers some evidence that suggests that atheism is, ultimately, rooted on sin and rebellion as indicated by Apostle Paul in Romans 1. In your experience with atheists, do you think Spiegel's hypothesis has some plausibility?

As a Christian, and therefore one who acknowledges the authority of the Bible, I believe Spiegel is correct. But we also can support this non-biblically. I observe that atheists who go to the trouble of trying to evangelize for their faith are like liberals and leftists generally: they talk about spreading peace and love but they often become personally vicious when opposed. Of course theists can be vicious too, but I see much more viciousness among the evangelical atheists. And people who are radically disobeying the commands of God (and some residual knowledge of these commands remains even among atheists) have an obvious motivation to deny God: they want to convince themselves that they do not face His wrath.

14-From a Christian philosophical perspective, the best anti-atheist books that I've read are Peter Williams' "A Sceptic’s Guide to Atheism"; John Lennox's "God's Undertaker" and Edward Feser's "Aquinas". All of these are books critical of atheism (and in the case of Feser's book, a solid contemporary defense of Aquinas' classical theism) by trained and sophisticated philosophers. What books or literature would you recommend to the atheists, agnostics and theists reading this interview?

As I said above, proofs of God are highly subjective in the sense that different people are moved by entirely different lines of reasoning. Also, I’m most interested in arguments which are appealing to the man in the street, not just professional intellectuals. I find that good, direct arguments for God are usually hidden, either behind professional jargon or else in obscure blogs, lectures, or some such. It’s as if we still need the book “The Idiot’s Guide to Proving God.”

That being said, I can report on some sources that have been useful to me. “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig and “Scaling the Secular City” by J. P. Moreland give comprehensive but accessible arguments for theism and Christianity using philosophy, science and history.

“Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Midair” by Gregory Koukl and Francis Beckwith demonstrates how moral relativism is false, and how this requires there to be a God. Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition,” a response to the New Atheists, shows how a professional philosopher, using classical philosophy, demonstrates God. Phillip E. Johnson’s writings, especially “Darwin on Trial” and “Reason in the Balance” demonstrate at a fundamental level the weakness of Darwinism and, indirectly, materialism. And C.S Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” is a unique source for many lines of reasoning arguing for God and Christianity.

15-In my blog, I deal a lot with scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena tested in laboratories (like telepathy, psychokinesis, remote viewing, etc.) and afterlife research (near-death experiences and mediumship research, for example). What do you think of these controversial fields? Do you think these phenomena, provided they exist, offer evidence against naturalism and in favor of God's existence (or at least, of some spiritual and transcendental dimension)?

I haven’t studied these fields and therefore cannot make an informed evaluation here. But I would say that if God exists, He intervenes from time to time in the physical world, and these interventions could be studied, at least in their physical manifestations, by science. If nothing else, this research can establish that paranormal phenomena sometimes do occur, which is valid evidence for a supernatural realm.

16-Something else you'd like to add to end this interview?

First, thank you Jime for giving me the opportunity to discuss these important questions at your blog.

I’d like to conclude by emphasizing the importance of the question of God’s existence at two levels: the social and the personal.

At the social level, we see that Western Civilization currently bases its sociopolitical order on practical atheism, i.e. either denying God’s existence or else relegating Him to the realm of private opinion. Either way, public policy is based on a denial of God. Liberals and leftists are busy overturning the traditional order because they believe that man, not God, is the supreme being. Therefore an essential part of resisting the Left is to reestablish a robust and widespread belief in God and His authority.

And now for the personal level:

If you, the reader of this blog, are undecided on the question of God’s existence, ask yourself some fundamental questions:

Which side in this dispute shows more confidence in their beliefs, as manifested by their being willing to engage in intellectual discourse rather than name-calling? Which side is genuinely willing to examine the evidence, rather than declaring that it is not valid because it violates their rules for thought? And how much do I really know about the reasoning each side uses?

The question of God’s existence is question number one. Everything else is influenced by your answer to this question, so you had better be as sure as possible of your answer. If you examine the evidence I believe you will see that theists make a much better case, and that the atheists’ case is mostly one of refusing to grant the validity of evidence that is actually valid.

But belief that God exists is not enough. If God exists, you need to know something Him, and this can only be possible if He has communicated with man in a way man can understand. This communication is called, of course, revelation. Many religions claim to have received revelations from God, but only one of them has two features that everyone needs: actual evidence and reasoning that validate this Revelation, and a solution to the problem that we all know that we have. That religion is Christianity.

This isn’t the place for the details. To know what Christianity teaches, I recommend the Heidelberg Catechism, or the Westminster Catechism, with its justly famous opening “Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.” And for an intellectual defense of Christianity, I recommend beginning with the books of Craig and Moreland mentioned in my answer to question #14 above. But the bottom line is that only Christianity correctly identifies man’s problem—sin—and provides the solution: repentance and faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of that sin. And that’s good news.

Links of interest:

-Alan Roebuck's articles on atheism (see this and this)

-My post on William lance Craig's examination of Richard Dawkins' main argument against God.

-My post on Thomas Nagel on atheism and the cosmic authority problem.

-Naturalist philosopher David MacArthur's paper entitled "Naturalism and Skepticism" (which demostrates that naturalism is a source of philosophical skepticism)

-Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg's article on the moral and intellectual implications of naturalism.

Garret Moddel brings psi research and noetic sciences to the University of Colorado in Boulder

Dr.Garret Moddel

Garret Model is a Professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. In the following video, he does a Recap on the two energy technologies he is currently researching. One is a new solar panel which when perfected can be stamped out of very thin metal film. It promises to be more efficient than traditional solar and Cheaper to manufacture. He has a working proof of concept but no full size device. The other is a theoretical Free Energy Device which employs the Casimir Effect. This is only a concept and has not been proven in the lab:



Professor Moddel has recently guided his students through the study of psi research and noetic sciences. According to Dr.Moddel: "the course goes through the history of psi research and we use different textbooks depending on the time. Right now the two textbooks that I’m using are Dean Radin’s Entangled Minds, which is just a wonderful, wonderful book describing psi research and then also Chris Carter’s book on Parapsychology and the Skeptics, which takes a wonderful philosophical view of all of this and puts it in perspective. Then each student or each group of students must carry out an independent psi research project. This has to be high quality research. It’s got to be publishable quality research. Half the grade depends upon it. And they take it quite seriously. They come up with very creative experiments."

You can read and hear the interview with Dr.Moddel in this Alex Tsakiris's Skeptiko podcast.

Richard Wiseman: the evidence for ESP meets the scientific standards for a normal claim

Some time ago, I wrote a post on Richard Wiseman's concession about remote viewing being proven by the standards of science. This concession was very much discussed on the web, and even in wikipedia it was included.

Well, Wiseman now claims that he was misquoted. According to the author of this skeptical website (who asked Wiseman about his actual citation), Wiseman clarified: "It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim."(emphasis in blue added)

Let's to examine Wiseman's clarification:

1-Note that Wiseman doesn't refute his previous citation, only clarifies a minor or slight "misquote" (see point 2)

2-Wiseman is referring to ESP in general, not to remote viewing in particular. (This point is where Wiseman was misquoted)

3-Note that such clarification implies that other cases of ESP, in addition to remote viewing, have met the scientific standards commonly used in science to justify the truth of any other normal claim.

Therefore, Wiseman's clarification is actually an additional support the parapsychology, since his concession is not limited to remote viewing, but also to other cases of ESP (Ganzfeld, etc. as well).

Note Wiseman's expression "as well", in the above citation. It's clearly an expression of inclusion, as when you say "I was to that party with my girlfriend. Her sister came with us, as well"

4-Wiseman's disagreement is philosophical, not based on the evidence for ESP as such.

He assumes that ESP is "extraordinary", and based on that assumption, he demands evidence ABOVE the normal, well-known, reliable, well-tested standards of science. But he doesn't explain in what sense ESP is "extraordinary", nor what criteria he did use to consider it like that, nor what he would count as extraordinary evidence (this point is key, because failing to mention what would count as extraordinary evidence is what allow skeptics to move the goal posts arbitrarily each time positive evidence for ESP is found or, at best, to remain unconvinced of the evidence and therefore, keeping naturalism and atheistic materialism alive. The latter is their ultimate philosophical and psychological motivation, as Thomas Nagel and others have realized).

But what if you critically challenge Wiseman's assumption that ESP is "extraordinary"? Or what if you agree with this author, who after a logical examination of the "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence" principle, concludes:

this principle does not hold up to logical scrutiny, because a claim is only ordinary or extraordinary in relation to a theory. For the sake of making this point, let us assume a scenario in a hypothetical new science in which there are two pieces of evidence to be discovered, A and B, each equally credible, each one suggesting an obvious, but incorrect explanation (call them (1) and (2)). (1) and (2) are mutually incompatible, and a third, highly non obvious explanation (3) that accounts for both A and B is actually correct.

As chance would have it, one of the two pieces of evidence A,B will be discovered first. Let A be that piece of evidence, and further suppose that the scientists working in that hypothetical field all subscribe to the principle of the double standard. After the discovery of A, they will adopt explanation (1) as the accepted theory of their field. At a later time, when B is discovered, it will be dismissed because it contradicts (1), and because A and B are equally credible, but A is ordinary relative to (1) and B is extraordinary.

The end result is that our hypothetical science has failed to self-correct. The incorrect explanation (1) has been accepted, and the correct explanation (3) was never found, because B was rejected. I therefore submit that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not suitable as a guiding principle for sound scientific research. All evidence, whether it supports accepted theories or not, should be given the same level of critical scrutiny.

Pseudoskeptics of course would argue that they simply do not have the resources to be skeptical about everything, so they have to concentrate on the obvious targets. But that doesn't get them off the hook. Pseudoskeptics apply the "extraordinary evidence" standard only selectively to controversial phenomena- namely, precisely when they fit their ideological preconceptions! When Doug Bower and David Chorley made the extraordinary claim that they had created all of the thousands of crop circles that had appeared in English fields between 1978 and 1991 (some of which had appeared on the same night in different regions of the country), there were no armies of skeptics loudly insisting that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Apparently, as long as the extraordinary claim is one that agrees with what the pseudoskeptics have "known" all along, it does not even require ordinary evidence. Bower and Chorley were never able to substantiate their claim, let alone prove it, but the "skeptical" community accepted it on faith - and without a trace of skepticism

Or what if you agree with writer Michael Prescott about that there is nothing "extraordinary" about ESP, because: "In a world where consciousness is restricted to the brain, remote viewing would indeed be extraordinary and outlandish. But in a world where consciousness can operate independent of the brain, remote viewing is exactly the kind of thing we would expect to see. We would also expect to see reports of out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, telepathy, precognition, apparitions, and after-death communication. And we do! In fact, such things have been reported for thousands of years all over the world and are taken for granted by billions of people today, just as they were by most of our ancestors.

So there may be nothing extraordinary or outlandish at all about any of these phenomena. They only appear that way to those who start with the assumption that such things just don't happen"

In other words, Wiseman's argument works only IF you uncritically assume that a claim about the existence of ESP is extraordinary. But if you're a neutral observer, without any prejudice/bias for or against ESP, and you are said by a professional skeptic and debunker like Wiseman that ESP is proven according to the usual standards of science, what would you think?

As a neutral observer and truth-seeker, would you remain skeptical of a phenomenon (ESP) which has been proven by the well-known, reliable, tested and commonly used standards of empirical science (the same standards used to support materialism and naturalism)?

And by the way, think about it: If ESP doesn't exist (as pseudo-skeptics and materialistic ideologues claim and want to believe), how the hell are we going to explain that such supposedly non-existent phenomena have been "proven" by the rigurous, well-tested and reliable standards of science? Is it likely that the reliable and rigurous standards of science can "prove" such supposedly non-existent phenomena? Is not more likely and rational to conclude that the rigurous standards of science have proved the existence of some ESP phenomena, precisely because such phenomena are actually existent?

In conclusion, if you agree with me (and others) that there is nothing "extraordinary" about ESP, and agree with professional skeptic Wiseman that ESP claims have met the usual standards of science, and agree with naturalist philosopher Evan Fales that ESP counts as evidence against naturalism, then you're rationally forced to inescapably conclude that ESP exists and therefore that NATURALISM IS FALSE.

And just by the way, if ESP claims met the criteria of the usual standards of science, how do you explain that pseudoskeptics keep repeating that parapsychology is a "pseudoscience"? Are not the parapsychologists themselves who, through hard experimentation, have produced the evidence which has forced a hard-nosed skeptic like Wiseman (and Hyman) to make the concessions discussed in this post?

The explanation is simple: As a rule, pseudoskeptics are ignorant, irrational and intellectually dishonest. In addition, they're ideologically and emotionally committed to materialism and naturalism, and to avoid cognitive dissonance in the face of contrary evidence, they have to undermine the value of parapsychology as a whole and its evidence-based claims in order to create the illusion and convince themselves that the materialistic/naturalistic atheistic worldview is safe from empirical refutation.

This is ultimate example of self-delusion, wishful thinking and irrationality.

Don't waste your time with ideologues.

Donald Hebb and the explicit pseudoskeptical prejudice against parapsychology.

Donald Hebb

For most part, professional pseudo-skeptics are smart enough to appearing themselves in public as open minded, objective scientific evaluators of the evidence for parapsychology, impartial inquirers without an axe to grind against the evidence for psi phenomena. However, whoever is familiar with the pseudoskeptical literature or history will know that it's false (the mere fact that these individuals belong to debunking organizations with the explicit purposes for defending materialism and naturalism, which are incompatible with psi evidence as explained in this post, suffices to prove it).

But sometimes, we found some pseudo-skeptic who makes public and explicit his prejudices and bias, in a open and free manner. Note that these individuals can be very competent in their own field of expertise, but when it comes to debating about the paranormal, they become irrational and sometimes admittedly so (this suggests that their extreme hostility to psi research, spirituality and a fortiori to the possible existence of God or a trascendent realm has emotional, spiritual and psychological roots, as I've discussed in this post)

And clarifying example of this is psychologist and neuropsychologist Donald Hebb, a first-rate scientitic researcher in psychology. Back in 1951, Hebb wrote:

Why do we not accept ESP as a psychological fact? Rhine has offered enough evidence to have convinced us on almost any other issue... Personally, I do not accept ESP for a moment, because it does not make sense. My external criteria, both of physics and of physiology, say that ESP is not a fact despite the behavioral evidence that has been reported. I cannot see what other basis my colleagues have for rejecting it... Rhine may still turn out to be right, improbable as I think that is, and my own rejection of his view is - in the literal sense - prejudice (Quoted in Chris Carter's book Parapsychology and the Skeptics. Emphasis in blue added)

Note Hebb's concession that his own personal rejection of psi evidence (which he considered Rhine has offered sufficient evidence to have convinced us in almost any other issue) is, in the literal sense, a PREJUDICE.

At least, we should congratulate Hebb by his honesty in explicitly accepting that his pseudskeptical position is not based on science or evidence, but in pure personal prejudice.

You won't see this level of intellectual honesty in most professional pseudo-skeptics, because their job consists precisely in creating the public illusion that they're talking in the name of science and reason, and not in defense of their personal prejudices rooted in psychological and ideological (i.e. materialistic, atheistic and naturalistic) motives.

If a first-rate, highly competent professional scientist like Hebb cannot escape from the materialistic prejudice against psi evidence (and he had the courage to concedes it explicitly), what would you expect from the normal, common, ordinary, intellectually mediocre materialistic pseudo-skeptic?