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.