Bertrand Russell on the existential implications of metaphysical naturalism

Have you seriously asked yourself about the implications of naturalism? In other words, if naturalism were true, which is the ultimate purpose of your life or existence? (the key word here is "ultimate")

Some time ago, famous secularist and naturalist philosopher Bertrand Russell commented about this question:

That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; . . . that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built ("A Free Man’s Worship,” in The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, eds., Robert E. Egner and Lester E. Denonn. p. 67. Emphasis in blue added)

If naturalism is true, Russell's point seems to be irrefutable.

Whatever you do in this life is, objectively and ultimately, without any trascendence or meaning. You're esssentially, radically and basically (in an ultimate sense) nothing (or more precisely, you come from nothing, and your ultimate end will be literally nothing... being your current existence a mere insignificant cosmic accident, without any ultimate trascendence, meaning or purpose at all).

If naturalism is true, your actual destiny will be radical and permanent EXTINCTION. And no knowledge, no money, no debating tactics, no books, no current fun activities, no "skeptical activism", no self-delusion, no ego, no self-centered interests, no science, no health, no happiness, no hard work, no love, no moral values, no altruism, no admiration from your fellows or friends, no professional merits, no academic titles, no personal victories in whatever field, no activity at all will prevent you to be extinguished... forever. And it would extend for all of us and even to the physical universe itself (which is the only existent reality for naturalism).

The ultimate destiny or fate of the killer, the rapist or the terrotist will be, literally, exactly the same than the destiny of good people: extinction and permanent non-existence. Ultimately, there is not difference at all (be for you or for anybody else, since all of us will be, at the end, extinguished).

This is why it's absolutely crucial that you examine carefully all the relevant the evidence for and against metaphysical naturalism, before you decide accept that worldview (and therefore, to believe and act consistently according to its implications).

Think about it.

Video by Vinstonas Wu: Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!

Links of interest:

-Vinstonas Wu's excellente treatise "Debunking the arguments of pseudo-skeptics and paranormal debunkers"

-Marcello Truzzi, co-founder and original member of the pseudo-skeptical organization CSICOP, exposed in this article the actual agenda, intentions, and actions of organized pseudo-skepticism: "Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers"

Truzzi's full article is an absolute must read, it's an eye opener for any truth seeker.

-Compare Truzzi's first hand experience with professional "skeptics" and Vinstonas Wu's argumentation on pseudo-skepticism, with this post on professional skeptic Richard Wiseman's concession that remote viewing is proven by science but it's still something that cannot and shouldn't be accepted (A complementary post clarifying Wiseman's concession can be read here)

-Article "Seven signs of bogus skepticism".

Distinctions Between Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals.

In 1981, journalist Sidney Harris drew important distinctions between intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals. In this post, I'll illustrate some of Harris' points with naturalist, atheist and pseudo-skeptical examples:

*The intellectual is looking for the right questions to ask; the pseudo is giving what he claims to be the right answers.

Example of a pseudo-intellectual: In his article "What's wrong with the paranormal", naturalist, atheist propagandist and pseudo-skeptic Richard Dawkins wrote: "The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans, and some of them have grown rich and fat by taking us for a ride. You wouldn’t fall for a smooth salesman who offered you a car without an engine. So why be fooled by paranormal con-artists? What they are selling you doesn’t work. Send them packing and drive them out of business."

While a pseudo-intellectual like Dawkins claims to have the right answers about the paranormal ("the paranormal is bunk"), other better informed skeptics and naturalists like Richard Wiseman have claimed that "I think that they (ESP claims) meet the usual (scientific) standards for a normal claim".

So if the "paranormal is bunk" like Dawkins claims, it is not due to any technical flaw in the scientific evidence supporting some of the phenomena called "paranormal".

*The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.

An example of this are some metaphysical naturalists, who instead of critically examine the implications of their own position in order to test them against the severest tests, try to defend it with fallacies and semantics like claiming that naturalism is simply the claim that "there is not God or inmaterial souls" (which is simply a restatement of atheistic materialism), and not a full worldview (and they defend such fallacy while defending and arguing for naturalist organizations that define naturalism explicitly as a worldview. An obvious example of logical inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty. See my post about it here.).

*The intellectual is willing to admit that what he does not know is far greater than what he knows; the pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about the subject under consideration.

*The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior.

An example of this form of pseudo-intellectual is seen in naturalist Paul Edwards, who arguing against the transmission/instrument theory of consciousness, posed the following "illustration" of the transmission theory:

Let us now see what the survival theorists would say about Mrs. D.’s behavior. It should be remembered that on this view Mrs.D., after her death, will exist with her mind intact and will only lack the means of communicating with people on earth. This view implies that throughout her affliction with Alzheimer’s Mrs. D.’s mind was intact. She recognized her daughter but had lost her ability to express this recognition. She had no wish to beat up an inoffensive paralyzed old woman. On the contrary, “inside” she was the same considerate person as before the onset of the illness. It is simply that her brain disease prevented her from acting in accordance with her true emotions. I must insist these are the implications of the theory that the mind survives the death of the brain and that the brain is only an instrument for communication. Surely these consequences are absurd

Any person familiar with the literature arguing for the transmission/instrument theory will realize that Edwards is arguing against a straw man, a position which no contemporary survivalist defends.

As I argued in other post, "Edwards' basic formulation of the instrument theory entails that consciousness is causative on the brain, but not the reverse. In other words, in Edwards' formulation of the transmission/instrument theory, the communication runs only in one-way direction:

Consciousness -----------------------> Brain

However, I added: Contemporary survivalists explicitly defend a two-way communication between consciousness and the brain. In other words:

Consciousness ---------------> Brain (e.g. placebo effect)

Brain ------------> Consciousness (e.g. drugs, LSD, brain diseases, etc.)

I cited as an example William James' EXPLICIT admission and reference to causation from the brain to consciousness: "Everyone knows that arrests of brain development occasion imbecility, that blows on the head abolish memory or consciousness, and that brain-stimulants and poisons change the quality of our ideas." (emphasis added)

Note that Edwards is not arguing against the ACTUAL (and best) formulation of the transmission theory as defended by its best proponents, but against an arbitrary and weak formulation of it in order to make it more easily refutable.

Other materialists follow Edwards in arguing against this straw man, because they fully realize that they cannot refute the transmission/instrument theory in its best formulation.

When you see such fallacious attempts of refutation of your position, you'll have an additional reason to think that your position is, after all, not very easy to refute.

*The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it cannot penetrate.


*The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities.

See below.

*The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists is true.

An example of this is the hypothesis that the brain causes or produces consciousness (i.e. the materialistic hypothesis) and in general the idea that "everything is material or physical" (philosophical materialism and naturalism). Materialistic pseudo-intellectuals defend such position as if it were a dogma.

For example, according to atheist biologist Richard Lewontin: "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)

See my comment about pseudo-intellectual Lewontin's materialistic faith in this post.

*The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.

Very often, you can see this "black and white" thinking in atheist websites (e.g. "science vs. religion", "skepticism vs. the paranormal", etc.). Note too Lewontin's reference above to the "real struggle between science and the supernatural" (keep in mind that Lewontin conflates science with naturalism, a clever trick since if you believe in something supernatural like God , the afterlife or souls, then you're, by Lewontin's arbitrary definition, unscientific or anti-scientific).

This misuse and abuse of terms and clever use of sematics is typical of ideologues and propagandists.

*The intellectual knows there are no final answers to human questions; the pseudo makes each tentative and provisional answer sound like a finality.

*The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the pseudo slavishly follows "the most reliable authorities" in his field sneering at heresies.

This point is typical of pseudo-skeptics: these individuals are absolutely submitted (at an intellectual level) to the mainstream consensus. Unable to think for themselves, they have an extreme credulity in the authority of scientific orthodoxy.

Marcello Truzzi, originally a co-founder of the pseudo-skeptical organization CSICOP, realized this: "Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers"

Possibly, this fact is the most obvious about professional pseudo-skeptics. I've known many people who don't have much knowledge about the origin, nature, tactics and motivation of organized pseudo-skepticism, but they realize that these individuals seem to be always defending the status quo.

As Vinstonas Wu has noted: "Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are highly selective with their skepticism. Not only do they not question their own beliefs, but they never challenge or apply skepticism to the status quo. Instead, they have a fanatical allegiance to it, evidenced by their behavior. A true skeptic examines all sides, including his own. But pseudoskeptics only point their skepticism at what they don't believe in, which everyone else does too. So what makes them different than anyone else then? Only one thing: The SIDE they're on. In this case, they are on the side of authority, orthodoxy and materialism. That is why their skepticism and critical examination is ONLY directed at anything and anyone that challenges the status quo, but NEVER at the status quo itself. In essence, that makes them "establishment defenders" (or establishment whores), not real skeptics."

Other authors has also realized this point, for example the author of this article: "The Skeptic's Dictionary, a leading pseudoskeptical online resource, gives us a great example of this selective blindness. Under the heading "ad hoc hypothesis", we find the following definition:

An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists.

What Todd Caroll, the author of the Skeptic's Dictionary does not see fit to share with his readers is that some of the most celebrated "discoveries" of mainstream science are mere ad hoc hypotheses designed to cover the failure of theories to agree with observational evidence. Some of these ad hoc hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that almost all of the matter and energy of the universe exists in a form undetectable by the instruments of science, that there is a particle that causes mass (the Higgs Boson), and that people who fail to improve on AIDS drugs must be infected with a resistant mutation of HIV, are then taken as facts, with the strongest evidence for the existence being that accepted theory requires them! And yet, you will search skeptical publications in vain for truly skeptical discussion of these subjects (as opposed to ones that agree with the mainstream consensus). "The Mainstream Consensus Is Always Right" seems to be the motto.

Pseudos-skeptics, like many other dogmatists, are intellectual cowards, and have a typical herd and sectarian mentality. And in my opinion, this is only one of the intellectual consequences of the faith in metaphysical naturalism (a worldview that tends to destroy the ability to reason efficiently).

Parapsychologists, students and fans of the paranormal have not realized this point correctly. They know that pseudo-skeptics are uncritical believers in the scientific consensus, but have not realized yet (as far I can see) that such intellectual position is CONSEQUENCE of the pseudo-skeptic's faith in metaphysical naturalism. Naturalism is the basic intellectual motivation of pseudo-skepticism, and failing to realize this is a great mistake.

Philosophers, not particularly interested in parapsychological questions but being trained to discover hidden theoretical premises and assumptions in the people's positions, have noted this. In particular, they have noted that pseudo-skeptics actual motivation is to push an atheist, materialist, naturalistic agenda (organized pseudo-skepticism is a necessary consequence of the faith in naturalism, because if you believe in naturalism, you have to disbelieve in parapsychological and afterlife evidence). For example Christian philosopher Peter Williams has written: "Sagan was a ‘Skeptic’, an American term that tends to designate someone who is sceptical about paranormal and supernatural truth claims, but who (so it often seems to me at least) uncritically endorses an atheistic, naturalistic worldview"

Williams easily notes that the term "skeptic" (as used by its proponents), designates an hyper-critic of everything which is inconsistent with the naturalist worldview.

This is why Marcello Truzzi proposed the word "zetetic" (=real or true skeptic) to describe a real truth seeker, a person who critically examine all the relevant sides and positions in order to find the truth (contrary to the the materialistic pseudo-skeptic/scoffer/denialist). In Truzzi's words: "the term skepticism is properly defined as doubt, not denial. It is a position of agnosticism, of nonbelief rather than disbelief. The true skeptic (a doubter) asserts no claim, so has no burden of proof. However, the scoffer (denier) asserts a negative claim, so the burden of proof science places on any claimant must apply. When scoffers misrepresent their position as a form of "hard-line" skepticism, they really seek escape from their burden to prove a negative position.

Perhaps the greatest confusion related to the needed distinction between skeptics and scoffers concerns their different reactions to the failure by a claimant to support an anomaly claim. The skeptics' attitude towards extraordinary claims (for example, those of parapsychology) where proponents have so far produced inadequate evidence to convince most scientists that their hypotheses about anomalies are true is characterized as a case not proven. A skeptic contends that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The scoffer, on the other hand, sees the failure of proponents as evidence that an anomaly claim has been disproved. The perspective of the scoffer, as with most dogmatists, tends to distinguish only black from white and fails to acknowledge gray areas. (Our criminal justice system may likewise be too dichotomous. Thus, similar reasoning led some citizens to conclude that the murder acquittal of O.J. Simpson meant he was judged innocent when he was merely found to be not guilty. Science might better follow the path of Scottish Law which allows for three possible judgements: guilty, not guilty or innocent, and not proven.) Scoffers use a similar foreshortening towards issues of evidence. It is common to hear statements to the effect that "there is no evidence supporting a claim" when in fact it is merely inadequate evidence that has been presented. Evidence is always a matter of degree, some being extremely weak; but even weak evidence can mount up (as shown by meta-analysis) to produce a stronger case. Weak evidence (most commonly anecdotal rather than systematic and experimental evidence) is often discounted, however, by assertions that it falls below some threshold of what science should consider evidence at all. This, of course, eliminates the evidential basis for most of clinical medicine and the social sciences, but that seems to hold no terror for the scoffer who invokes such criteria"

Keep in mind that pseudo-intellectuals, and therefore pseudo-skeptics, tend to be seasoned sophists, clever propagandists, trained in the use of semantics and fallacies in order to cause confusion and misrepresent the evidence.

The misuse of the term "skeptic" and other word games by these dogmatists is only part of their clever strategy to push a naturalistic and atheistic agenda and get the upper hand in debates.

*The intellectual never talks down to his audience, but tries to be as clear as possible; the pseudo talks above his audience to mystify and impress them."

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

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

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

William Lane Craig lecture on Richard Dawkins entitled Dawkins Delusion

Christian philosopher and professional debater William Lane Craig delivered the lecture entitled Dawkins Delusion, where he examined in depth Richard Dawkins' main argument for atheism.

It's important to realize that Craig's refutation of Dawkins' argument is not based on Christianity. So, reargdless of your beliefs (and even if you're an atheist) you could agree with Craig's critical examination of Dawkins' argument.

I've previously published a post on Craig's refutation of Dawkins' argument here. But the above lecture is a more detailed examination of it.

Think hard through Craig's argumentation and draw your conclusions.

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

 
Scientific evidence suggests that, in United States, atheists are considered the most distrusted minority.

This fact deserves to be fully understood and studied.

The purpose of this post is to examine if the REASONS hold by most Americans against atheism are JUSTIFIED (given the evidence), or if it's a pure product of the Christian religious "bigotry" or prejudices supposedly typical of most American citizens.

According to this poll: "American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity does not extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology. From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry"

What reasons do have the American citizens to hold such view against atheists? According to the study: "It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."

Let's to summarize the reasons posed by American people to distrust atheists:

1-Fear of moral decline and social disorder

2-Rampant materialism

3-Cultural Elitism

Please, keep in mind the 3 above reasons, when examining this post. I'll provide EVIDENCE which prove that the above 3 traits are typical and very common in many atheists (specially in the militant materialistic atheists and metaphysical naturalists), and fully explains the American people' distrust on atheism.

Note, for the record, that it doesn't mean that ALL the atheists are like that (or that religious people cannot share traits like the 3 ones mentioned above). The point is that many atheists are like that, and this explains and warrant the inference that atheism (as a WORLDVIEW) will have the consequences feared by most Americans.

Also for the record, the point of this post is NOT to justify, induce or promote any kind of discrimination or persecution against atheists (or believers of any other belief system or worldview, for that matter). Rather, the point is to examine if the REASONS to distrust atheists hold by American people are justified and warranted given the evidence. This is a purely intellectual examination of the evidence and its implications to understand the poll.

If you confront strong believers in naturalistic atheism with this empirical evidence, their reply will almost certainly will be "This is a product of religious bigotry and prejudice. Most people are bigoted against atheists, by religious motives". Or some reply like that.

I think this atheistic reply is false (or irrelevant), and demostrably so. I don't deny that some people is bigoted against atheists by religious motives; but I DO deny that such religious motives are the only reason behind the distrust regarding atheists.

Moreover, the atheistic reply mentioned above is a red herring, and reveals an absolute unability by these atheists to be self-critical and rational, and give us more evidence that their cognitive faculties don't function properly in order to find the truth. This supports other lines of evidence (which I've discussed in depth my blog) suggesting that many materialistic atheists and naturalists are irrational.

Note that in the above poll, the first reason to distrust atheists is essentially of a MORAL kind. In other words, American citizens think that atheism poses a risk to USA in terms of the moral order (i.e. American people think atheism could cause a moral decline and, as consequence, a social disorder).

Let's to examine the evidence to see if the belief of most Americans is true (or at least plausible).


EVIDENCE FOR THE MORAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW:

Let's to see how morality is seen by one of the most prominent apologists and influential propagandists for atheism, Richard Dawkins.

According to Richard Dawkins: "If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan... I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police" (Reference: This interview)

I ask my readers: is not that Dawkins' view on morality a straightforward confirmation of what most American people think about the likely moral decline entailed by atheism and the inability of atheism to provide a solid foundation for moral values and judgments?

More broadly and making explicit the worldview considerations underlying Dawkins' atheistic beliefs on morality, Dawkins argues: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." (River Out Of Eden, p.155.)

If Dawkins' atheistic worldview is right, then there is, at the bottom, no evil and no good at all. Is not Dawkins destroying the basic concepts of ethics (like the concept of "good" and "evil")? If evil and good are non-existent, then how the hell is Dawkins' atheistic worldview going to account for moral beliefs and actions?

Is not Dawkins' materialistic atheistic worldview going to cause a "moral decline" (as believed by most Americans in the poll mentioned above)?

In his debate with William Lane Craig, atheist philosopher and biologist Massimo Pigliucci argues: "There is no such a thing as objective morality. We got that straightened out. Morality in human cultures has evolved and is still evolving, and what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean, the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean, and so on"

I ask the objective, rational and neutral readers: Is not Pigliucci's atheistic relativistic belief that "what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door" a belief that, if followed and assumed consistently, would destroy the social order? Is not such belief a potential cause of moral decline? Is not justified the fear of Americans regarding the destruction of morality entailed by atheistic beliefs like that?

Keep in mind that one of the findings of the poll was that "Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong"

Do you think that the atheistic worldview that Dawkins and Pigliucci share might offer an understanding of right and wrong? Is not Dawkins and Pigliucci destroying the basic objective conditions for sharing common stable and rational criteria to understand what's right and what's wrong (or what's good or evil)? Suppose that people like Dawkins or Pigliucci were the controllers of society and apply CONSISTENTLY their atheistic materialistic beliefs: What social consequences would you expect from that?

I think the answers to all of these questions are very obvious, but I let you to decide. Think hard about it.

EVIDENCE FOR THE ATHEISTS' RAMPANT MATERIALISM:

I'll skip this point, since a large part of my blog is dedicated to critically examine atheistic materialism and naturalism, so I don't want to repeat me here.

EVIDENCE FOR THE ATHEISTS' CULTURAL ELITISM:

One of the most obvious traits of atheists (at least, of many of them) is the extreme arrogance and feelings of superior rationality and intelligence of these individuals. This is clearly a delusion, rooted probably in psychological disorders and spiritual causes.

But my interest here is not to speculate about the origin of these individuals' irrationalities and delusions, but provide EVIDENCE which confirms the cultural elitism mentioned by the poll.

Perhaps the most interesting (and funny, I concede) evidence of this is the attempt by some materialistic atheists and naturalists to label themselves as "brights" (implying that non-atheists are not brights), an obviously puerile, monumentally silly and ridiculous self-gratifying label intented to increase their elitistic delusions and irrational fantasies of intellectual superiority.

In the naturalistic website www.the-brights.net, you can read this ridiculous definition of "bright": "

What is a bright?

* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

Note that a bright is, by definition, someone who accept the naturalistic ideology. If it's true, then most of the people on Earth (who believe in God or some supernatural or mystical realm) are not brights. Therefore, actual brights belong to a very select group of superior people, hence to an ELITE (and this is a cultural elite, since what make you to belong to it are cultural factors, like the kind of beliefs which you hold: in this case, the belief that the naturalistic ideology is true).

Expanding on the silly self-centered and self-gratifying definitions given above, that ridiculous website continues: "Think about your own worldview to decide if it is free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the description above, then you are, by definition, a bright!

On this website, you can simply say so and, by doing so, join with other brights from all over the world in an extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society—the Brights movement"

Perhaps you're laughing after reading the definitions and arguments given by such a sectarian and elitistic movement. But the topic is serious: it provides independent EVIDENCE which confirms the "cultural elitism" mentioned in the poll above. Note, by the way, that one of the findings of the researchers of poll reported that

As has argued Thomistic philosopher Edward Feser: "Several years ago, Dennett famously suggested in a The New York Times piece that secularists adopt the label "brights" to distinguish them from the religious believers. His proposal doesn't seem to have caught on (perhaps because a grown man who goes around earnestly chirping "I'm a bright" surely sounds rather like an idiot. But whatever the rhetorical deficiencies of "bright", it perfectly encapsulates the self-satisfaction of the secularist mentality: "We're intelligent, informed, and rational, while religious believers are stupid, ignorant, and irrational, not at all bright like us" (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, p. 3)

The "secularist mentality" mentioned by Feser is another name for the "elististic mentality" typical of atheistic materialists and naturalists.

Note, by the way, that the use of silly labels like "brights" (applied by naturalistic atheists to themselves) reveals an obvious egocentric, self-centered, self-gratifying, self-interested kind of personality very common in these individuals. And one of researchers of the poll reported that "Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good"
Now, I ask you: calling oneself "bright" while considering the rest of people on Earth "non-brights" (and therefore, inferior to the "brights") is not evidence of being obviously self-centered and having not actual concern with the common good? Do you contribute to the "common good" stigmatizing, discrediting and undervaluating (as "non-brights") the great majority of people on Earth who disagree with you? Is it not evidence for a purely elitistic, sectarian, egocentric, self-interested concern to benefit the "bright" and his own small sect, while discrediting the "non-brights" (i.e. the overwhelming majority of people on the Earth)?

So, I ask you my dear reader, being absolutely objective and given the evidence, are most Americans wrong when they link atheism with cultural elitism?

Judge by yourself. Don't be fooled by the atheists' red herring speculations about bigotry and prejudices of most American citizens. Stick to the EVIDENCE and draw your conclusions from it.

In my view, Americans are right to think that atheism (more specifically, the naturalistic-based atheism, which is the culturally predominant one discussed in this post) would cause a moral decline and bring a severe and dangerous social disorder. I'd add that the naturalistic ideology is dangerous on the intellectual level too, since it tends to impair and destroy the ability to think logically and rationally, as I've discussed in several posts in this blog (also, this explains for example the puerile and ridiculous use of labels like "brights" to define themselves. They are intellectually unable and blind to see their own irrationalities, and how their own behaviour reinforces the justified negative view which most people have about them)

As Feser mentioned, a person who seriously call himself a "bright", sounds like an idiot. And I submit that such person IS probably an idiot, and so unworthy of intellectual respect.