Atheistic misdirections and fallacies in philosophy of religion: Michael Martin on the Kalam cosmological argument in his debate with Phil Fernandes

In his debate with Christian apologist Phil Fernandes, atheist apologist and philosopher Michael Martin replied to the Fernandes' Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence like this:

According to Dr. Fernandes the Kalam cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of God. This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God. I am willing to grant (1) although I believe that this premise is much more controversial than Dr. Fernandes supposes.[5] The other two premises I do not grant. First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible.[6] In particular, Dr. Fernandes misunderstands modern science very badly in supposing that embracing such a view would "destroy the pillars of modern science." It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause. Second, the cause of the universe need not be God. It could be a malevolent being or an impersonal force or a plurality of gods or a finite God. Of course, Dr. Fernandes uses other considerations to support his theistic interpretation of the cause of the Big Bang. But these considerations are not well argued for. For example, he maintains that intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence; hence human intelligence cannot come from a mindless universe. However, no good reason is given for this claim and, in any case, a nonmindless universe is compatible with other hypotheses beside theism, for example, polytheism. Third, it is unclear how God could have caused the Big Bang since time is supposed to have been created in the Big Bang. God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect. In particular, causation in terms of intentions and desires are temporally prior to their effects. God's desires and intentions therefore cannot be the cause of the Big Bang. (emphasis in blue added)

Let's to examine Martin's contentions in more detail:

1-First, he misrepresents and misconstructs the kalam cosmological argument, when he formulates it like this: "This is the argument that (1) the universe began in time, that (2) this beginning was caused, and that (3) this cause was God"

This is simply false. The kalam cosmological argument is actually constructed like this:

1)Whatever begins to exist have (or must have) a cause

2)The universe began to exist

3)Therefore, the universe had a cause

You can see a video explaining the actual formulation of this argument here:



In fact, Fernandes in his opening statement (to which Martin replied), explicitly formulate it in that way: "This argument is called the kalaam cosmological argument for God's existence. Saint Bonaventure utilized this argument.[1] William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland are two modern proponents of it.[2] This argument is as follows: 1) whatever began to exist must have a cause, 2) the universe began to exist, 3) therefore, the universe had a cause."(Emphasis in blue added)

So, note that Martin's misrepresentation of the kalam argument is intentional. It's known as a straw man fallacy and it's unworthy of serious philosophers (Personally, when I read "thinkers" defending intentionally fallacies like that, I loss any intellectual respect for them). Serious philosophers try to examine opposing arguments in their best formulation (i.e. in their strongest version) in order to assess the actual force (or weakness) of the argument. (Instead, propagandists and ideologues tend to use the straw man fallacies, because their purpose is not to find the truth and follow the argument where it leads, but to defend their cherished beliefs and ideology from falsification)

2-On the other hand, Martin's intentional misconstruction of the kalam argument is not an argument of all (all of the propositions used in Martin's straw man have not the form of a logically valid argument). Compare Martin's straw man with the actual formulation of the kalam argument (which is a formally valid argument).

When you see a person arguing like that, you have a powerful reason to doubt that person's intellectual competence. Given that Martin is a trained philosopher, it's unlikely that he cannot understand the arguments he's criticizing. So we can only conclude that his misinterpretation of the kalam argument is intentional (which suggest some kind of intellectual dishonesty).

3-Note Martin's intentional omission of the crucial metaphysical premise of the kalam argument: the premise that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". That premise is crucial, because it's what warrant the belief that the universe, if it began to exist, must have a cause. (So, the belief that the universe was caused is not arbitrary; rather, it's a consequence of a highly plausible metaphysical principle commonly assumed in science and confirmed by our everyday experience)

Now, astute readers will be in position to see why Martin intentionally misconstructed the argument. He accepts the universe has a beginning, but he denies it was caused (something that he couldn't deny if he accepts the premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". Do you see why he didn't mention that premise at all in his straw man? It's an astute debating tactic, but it's a unacceptable for honest truth seekers and sincere lovers of wisdom)

4-Martin argues: "First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, "out of nothing." Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"

How the hell the universe "could" arise out of "nothing"? Martin doesn't explain how such thing could occur. He simply asserts it, without any sound argument to support that view. (it's called the fallacy of proof by mere assertion) Coming from nothing would imply the existence of an effect without a cause, and this seems to be absurd and unintelligible (except for atheist ideologues eager to avoid a conclusion favourable to theism), since an effect is an essential element of a causal relation (i.e. a causal relation is causal precisely because there are causes and effects).

But Martin could reply that his point is precisely that there is not causal relation at all in the beginning of the universe. However, in that case, the burden of proof is in Martin to prove that claim. Simply asserting it is not an argument for it. Only uncritical thinkers will swallow such claim without any evidence or argument.

Moreover, we have powerful reasons to think such thing (coming from nothing) is metaphysically impossible. "Nothing" is not an entity or process, so it cannot create anything at all since "it" doesn't even exist. Nothing is nothing, it doesn't exist. It's not a being, a substance, an entity, a process, a state, a property... it's simply NOTHING (=absolute non-existence at all). Therefore, coming from nothing seems to be make no rational sense at all (but atheists prefer to believe in this nonsense before accepting that naturalism could be false).

Note that nautralists and materialists are "skeptics" of claims about psychokinesis and other phenomena suggesting the causal efficacy of the mind or consciousness, but are highly credulous when they heard that the universe was caused by or come from "nothing". (I ask objective readers: what is more likely, that a mind or consciousness could be causally efficacious, like in psychokinesis or the placebo effect; or that "nothing" could bring into existence something like the whole universe? Why the hell materialistic atheists are extremely skeptical of the former and believers in and highly sympathetic to the latter? I think the reason is obvious: Atheist irrationalists and ideologues are "skeptical" of the former, despite of the evidence for it, because it refutes their worldview; and they're believers of the latter, because it allows them to block the conclusion of the kalam cosmological argument and keep metaphysical naturalism alive. This is more evidence of the extreme weakness of atheistic metaphysical naturalism and, specially, of the fact that the cognitive faculties of these atheists don't function properly, and also of the fact that these individuals are not interested in the truth, but in the defense of their naturalistic-atheistic ideology)

Martin argues that: "Several well known cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible"

So what? The fact that several comsologists have embraced that view is not a logical argument for the conclusion that it's possible that something can come out of nothing. (Just imagine that I argue that several cosmologists or physicists are theists and have defended that the universe was caused by God. Does it, by itself, show that theism is possible?)

Weak arguments like that provide strong evidence of the extreme weakness of metaphysical naturalism (which rest mostly on faith and wishful thinking and fallacious arguments like that one)

But let's concede, only for the argument's sake and despite of Martin's weak arguments, that it's "possible" to something come from nothing.

Does it mean that such thing is "probable", likely or plausible in the specific case of the universe's beginning to exist? Does it mean we're epistemically justified in believing such thing? Even if it were logically possible that something could come from nothing, we need a reason to think that it is more likely than the (well-confirmed) premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The mere possibility of an idea is not an argument for the probability or plausibility of it. So, Martin needs an argument to convince us that something can come from nothing is not only "possible" (or at least conceivable) but more plausible than whatever begins to exist has cause (the latter is a principle confirmed by our experience, and assumed by science. After all, is not science in the business of explaining facts and phenomena appealing to the causal mechanisms that produce them? So, if the beginning of the universe is a fact, it is not a scientific explanation to say that it comes from nothing, without any rational explanation at all).

Just imagine a professional scientist who, confronted with a new phenomenon X (e.g. a new disease, or an explosion or whatever) would say: "Such phenomenon could come from nothing. Science doesn't require that whatever begins to exist has a cause, so there is not reason to think that the beginning to exist of such phenomenon was caused. It could simply exist, without any cause at all. Period" (Do you think that reply is proper of a scientist? Do you think that belief would help to improve science and promote scientific investigation? Does such belief would promote new and original scientific discoveries about the universe? Do you think it is a proper scientific stance?)

By the way, that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is plausible given our personal and collective experience and the practique of science; so who argues that such principle is false, is making an extraordinary claim given that background. But if it's the case, why the hell atheists don't appeal to the "skeptical principle" that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in that case? Exactly, which is the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that something can come out nothing? Where is the extraordinary evidence for that outlandish claim? Naturalist and materialist ideologues in their pseudo-skeptical humour appeal to that principle when they need to refute or cast doubts on paranormal claims (because such claims refutes naturalism and materialism); but when the claim is entailed or implied by naturalism (e.g. that the universe's beginning wasn't caused by anything), these ideologues "forget" the "extraordinary claims..." rule and uncritically accepts the unsupported claim that the universe came from nothing. (the same applies when these ideologues are highly sympathetic or even accept, without any evidence, the existence of multiverses, i.e. that there are many universes in addition to this one). This is product of wishful thinking, cognitive malfunctioning and irrationality typical of hard-core metaphysical naturalists and materialists.

Take for example the case of multiverses. In this article, infidels writer, atheist and naturalist Richard Carrier believes that such multiverses cannot be proved to exist or not exist, and hence we'd be agnostic about it: "Certainly, we cannot know they do. But we cannot know they do not and thus... agnosticism is the only justified outcome of this line of reasoning"

However, given that the multiverse hypothesis can explain the origin of this universe (and hence, make the hypothesis of God unnecessary, according to atheists), atheists are eager to believe in the evidentially unsupported (and accordintg to Carrier, in principle unprovable) multiverse hypothesis. In fact, in his book, Carrier is highly sympathetic about such evidentially unsupported hypothesis and even dare to make wild (and unprovable) speculations about its nature and features:

"Currently the most credible explanations of the nature and origin of the universe belong to “multiverse theory,” the idea that our universe is just one of many... We don’t yet know if the multiverse has existed for an infinite length of time, or if it had a beginning. . . . it may be that if we keep going back in time we will keep finding universe after universe, and it may well be it is universes all the way down. . . . Our universe is simply in the middle of a fixed, endless structure. For the same reason a multiverse that had a beginning would not have come “from” anywhere—there would exist nothing “before” the first ever moment of time, and that first moment of time, like every moment of time, would simply be an eternal fixed reality. It needs no cause. It is its own cause" (Sense and Goodness witout God, pp. 75-84)

If according to Carrier, the existence of multiple universes cannot in principle be known to exist, on what evidential grounds does Carrier say that the "multiverse theory" is credible? Why does he speculate about the properties of such entities (other universes) if such entities cannot be known to exist or not exist (so making his speculations untestable too)? Where's Carrier's agnosticism (the "only justified outcome of this line of reasoning")? Why does he consider such admittedly unprovable hypothesis to be "credible", while he's highly skeptical of psi claims which, according to skeptics like Wiseman, meet the usual evidential standards for any normal scientific claim (and hence, are scientifically better supported than the multiverse hypothesis, which is untestable, unsupported and in principle UNSUPPORTABLE)?

Do you see why I'm convinced that these individuals are not rational? They change their standards in a ad hoc way in order to keep their beliefs consistent and inmune from empirical or rational refutation. They're deluding themselves (and this is why I submit that these individuals' cognitive faculties don't function properly. Their minds don't function properly in order to figure out and discover the truth. They're irrational) They're not truth seekers, but ideologues, defenders of an atheistic, materialistic ideology. They have an extraordinary faith in and emotional commitment to naturalistic atheism, and they want to believe that atheism is true.

5-Martin's next move is to use another crude, dishonest and obvious straw man: "It is simply not the case that modern science assumes that everything has a cause" (emphasis in blue added)

Who's the hell is arguing that "everything has a cause"? No sophisticated philosophical theist I know of has ever defended such ridiculous statement. And Fernandes is not arguing such thing either.

Again, Martin intentionally misrepresent Fernandes' argument and assumes that is based on the view that "everyhting has a cause". But it is NOT Fernandes' premise. The actual premise is whatever BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause (the "BEGINS" word is key, since that such premise doesn't imply that everything, without exception, has a cause; it only asserts that things that begin to exist, that is, contingent or non-necessary things, needs a cause for their existence)

Atheists intentionally and dishonestly misconstruct the argument in order to make it more easily refutable (After all, atheists like to say, "if everything, without exception, has a cause, then God also needs a cause"... so the theist argument seems to be self-defeating) When you read such thing, you'll know for sure that these atheistic individuals are not worthy of intellectual respect.

In this article, philosopher Edward Feser, commenting on the common and intentional atheist's straw man ("everything has a cause"), has written: "In fact, not one of the best-known defenders of the Cosmological Argument in the history of philosophy ever gave this stupid “everything has a cause” argument—not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazali, not Maimonides, not Thomas Aquinas, not John Duns Scotus, not G.W. Leibniz, not Samuel Clarke, not Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not Richard Swinburne. And not anyone else either, as far as I know. Perhaps... you think that when trying to refute some of history’s greatest minds, a good strategy would be to attack an argument none of them ever defended."

And attacking an argument that no serious philosophical defender of the cosmological argument has ever defended (and certainly, no the argument that Fernandes is defending in his opening statement) is exactly what Martin is doing in his reply to Fernandes, in order to fool his readers and preach for the atheist chorus (a chorus of atheist believers and ideologues which lack the intellectual competence, honesty, objectivity and logical training to spot Martin's straw man fallacies).

It's a shame, since that serious philosophers are characterized by attacking the argument in its best version and as defended by its best proponents (instead of attacking silly straw men). Martin's misconstruction of the kalam argument, and his systematic use of straw men, is an insult to philosophy of religion and the readers' intelligence (in fact, in Martin's books, he repeats the same fallacy again and again when addresing the cosmological argument)

I'm used to that kind of atheistic intellectual dishonesty (or incompetence, or both), but I confess to get strongly annoyed each time I read such fallacies when they are used by supposedly competent atheist philosophers. I consider such thing an insult to philosophy in general and an offense to the intelligence of the readers, even of the honest atheist readers who are genuinely interested in finding the truth about God's existence or non-existence.

For more examples on that kind of intellectual dishonesty and incompetence by atheist philosophers and propagandists, and the "everything has a cause" atheistic straw man, please read this article in Edward Feser's blog.

At the same time, attacking a straw man suggests that the attacker cannot refute the argument in his best formulation (maybe, because the argument is good or plausible if formulated correctly or in its strongest form?)

6-Martin argues that "God cannot have caused the universe in any sense one can understand since a cause is normally temporally prior to its effect"

But it doesn't imply that simultaneous causation doesn't exist. In fact, there are many cases where causes and effects are clearly simultaneous (e.g. the potter making a pot, where the potter's positioning his hand in such and such way and the pot's taking on such and such a shape are simultaneous. You can think in your own examples of simultaneous causation)

Routinely, professional philosophers (most of them atheists) interested in causation, discuss cases of actual simultaneous causation (i.e. where causes and effects are simultaneous) and even cases of (more speculatively) "backward causation". As has argued atheist philosopher of science James Ladyman: "Another characteristic of causal relations is that causes usually precede effects in time. Whether this is always so is not immediately obvious, because sometimes it seems that causes and effects can be simultaneous, as when we say that the heavy oak beam is the cause of the roof staying up. Furthermore, some philosophers hold that ‘backwards causation’ where a cause brings about an effect in the past is possible." (Understanding philosophy of science, p. 36)

Even atheist philosopher Quentin Smith, in his defense of the beginning of the universe without needing God as explanation, appeals to simultaneous causation in order to support his case. In his debate with William Lane Craig, atheist Smith argued: "Scientists have been saying for a long time that the universe began about 15 billion years ago with an explosion they call the Big Bang. Bill believes the Big Bang was caused by God and I believe it both caused itself to exist and caused the later states of the universe to exist. At the Big Bang there is a line of simultaneous causes and effects. This is implied both by a Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics and by the EPR correlations - for those of you in the audience who are science majors - which imply - you don't need to understand either of the sciences to understand my talk - and these theories imply that there are instantaneous causal relations between simultaneous events" (emphasis in blue added)

So, that causes usually precede their effects is true; but that causes MUST (always) precede their effects is false, and this point is widely known by philosophers specialized in causation and even explicitly defended by some atheist philosophers of religion (like Quentin Smith) to argue for their atheist case.

Therefore, supposing that God caused the universe, it is not logically nor metaphysically impossible for Him (who's "omnipotent") to bring the universe into existence simultaneously with the creation of the time.

CONCLUSION:

In my opinion, metaphysical naturalism is false (most posts of my blog present evidence for this conclusion). This explains why atheists like Martin employ fallacies when tryting to refute arguments against naturalism (e.g. argument for God's existence). You cannot defend a falsehood in a coherent way. The naturalist needs to distortion and misrepresent consistently the opponent's argument, in order to avoid the refutation of naturalism.

The above also explains why atheists contradict each other in essential points when arguing for their atheism. While Martin tries to block the cosmological argument saying that causes are prior to their effects, Quentin Smith argues his atheist case appealing to simultaneous causation.

The reason for that that they want to reach a atheism-favourable conclusion, and they try to rationalize (i.e. seek reasons to support a previously assumed to be true conclusion) their atheism, in order to find premisses that support their previously assumed atheistic conclusion. (Actual truth-seekers use the reverse procedure: they reach the conclusions AFTER having examined the best reasons for and against a given matter or claim).

As has conceded atheist Thomas Nagel: "I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and wellinformed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that."

Obviously, if you don't want that a certain claim be true, and you're strongly committed to reject such claim, you're going to use every kind of fallacy in the book in order to avoid the conclusion that you dislike.

This is called WISHFUL THINKING, which is a kind of intellectual delusion and is rampant among metaphysical naturalists (and other people too), and it's the actual explanation of Martin's fallacies, specially his silly straw man and often repeated misrepresentation of the key premise of cosmological argument ("everthing has a cause").

Recommended reading:

-A summary and defense of some of the most sophisticated contemporary arguments for God's existence can be read in this paper by Christian theist and philosopher William Lane Craig (Even though Craig is a believer in the existence of the Christian God, astute readers will realize that some of his arguments support a broad conception of God in general as a supreme spiritual and causally creative cosmic intelligence of great power. Such arguments, like the cosmological argument, don't commit the readers to believe in any religious text or doctrine. It's what make these arguments very interesting from a purely philosophical point of view)

-For a summary of the cosmological arguments for God's existence, see this paper by David Oderberg.

-For an explanation of the "principle of causality" as actually defended by classical theists, see Edward Feser's book Aquinas.

-For a debate between an atheist and a theist on the kalam cosmological argument, see the book Theism, Atheism and The Big Bang Cosmology (by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith)

Interview with philosopher and writer Chris Carter

This is an interview for my blog with philosopher and author Chris Carter about consciousness, philosophy and parapsychology. Carter is author of the books Parapsychology and The Skeptics, and Science and the Near Death Experience (recently released). Enjoy.

1)Chris, tell us a something about your background?

I’m Canadian, but I was educated in England, at Oxford University, in both economics and philosophy. I currently teach internationally.

My first book, Parapsychology and the Skeptics, was primarily concerned with understanding why a substantial minority of the scientific community has been vehemently denying the existence of psychic abilities such as telepathy for well over a century.

My second book, which has just been released, is titled Science and the Near Death Experience, and deals with the mind-body relationship, and what the near-death experience (NDE) can tell us about that.

2)Do you think a basic training in philosophy is useful to weigh and evaluate the evidence and controversy about parapsychology and the afterlife?

Yes, of course. But most philosophers simply ignore the evidence. Like the so-called skeptics, their thinking is wedded to an out-moded worldview based upon classical physics, which has been known to be fundamentally incorrect for almost a century. The irony here is that they think they are being very scientific in their thinking.

Psychologists and philosophers tend to be the most closed-minded in their thinking on these topics. Physicists and physicians tend to be the most open-minded. But there are exceptions, of course. Many philosophers, such as Curt Ducasse and William James in the past, and Neal Grossman and Robert Almeder today, have written extensively on these issues.

3) Most books on parapsychology present and discuss the experimental evidence for psi. In your book Parapsychology and the Skeptics, in addition to discussing the evidence for psi and examining the criticisms against it, you adopt an original approach: You examine the background assumptions of the debate, and argue that the controversy is not primarily about evidence, but about the interpretation of it. Why did you decide to approach this problem in this way?

Well, as I said earlier, I was concerned with understanding why a substantial minority of the scientific community has been vehemently denying the existence of psychic abilities such as telepathy for well over a century. At first glance, this may seem very puzzling: Reports of psychic abilities date back to the dawn of history, and come from cultures all over the world. Surveys also show that most working scientists accept the possibility that telepathy exists, and many leading scientists have endorsed and supported psychical research.

Essentially, I argue that this debate is not primarily about evidence. It’s not even about the interpretation of evidence, as most so-called skeptics simply ignore the evidence. When they can’t ignore it, they dismiss it. When they can’t dismiss it, they try to suppress it. The problem is that the evidence conflicts with their preconceived opinions.

It is important to remember that the deniers are defending an out-moded world view in which psychic phenomena are simply not allowed to exist. Most of the deniers and phony-skeptics are militant atheists or secular humanists. If they conceded the existence of psychic abilities, then materialism - one of the main pillars of their opposition to religion and superstition - would crumble. Hence, their dogmatic denial of the evidence.

4) In your first book, you discuss the philosophy of science of Karl Popper and its relevance for evaluating the scientific status of parapsychology. Do you think Popper's thinking has been correctly understood? What are the main misrepresentations of Popper's ideas, in your opinion?

Popper is one of the very few philosophers whose work is praised by working scientists. His work on the philosophy of science – which I summarize in a chapter in my first book – is a masterpiece of thought. However, I have never read a single criticism of his work which was not based on a misunderstanding of it.

Popper’s basic premise is that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be testable. That is, it must make predictions that are capable of being falsified in principle. One criticism which you will find again and again in the literature is that the principle of falsification is not itself capable of being falsified. So there! But what these critics do not understand is that the principle of falsification is not meant to be a scientific theory. That is, it is not a conjecture that attempts to explain a relationship between empirical facts. Rather, it is a methodology that provides a program of action which enables science to learn from its mistakes, and thereby progress.

Falsification is a criterion of demarcation between science and non-science, and not a criterion of meaning. Popper never maintained that philosophical ideas or theories are meaningless; they are just not capable of being tested.

5) In your first book you mention that, in forthcoming books, you'll address and examine critically the evidence for life after death. Can you tell us something more about your forthcoming books on the afterlife?

Well, as I said earlier, my second book, which has just been released, is titled Science and the Near Death Experience. It deals with the mind-body relationship, and what the NDE can tell us about that. There is an extensive discussion of the NDE, and a comparison of NDEs from different cultures around the world. It turns out that here is a lot of cross-cultural similarity between Western and Eastern reports, and between reports from modern civilizations and from tribal cultures such as the Maori and Native American.

In my new book I also deal with all of the alternative explanations: oxygen deprivation, carbon dioxide poisoning, and so on. Ultimately, none of these materialistic explanations holds up.

6) In your excellent article "Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?" you argue that the transmission theory of consciousness is a better explanation than the productive theory. But some people say that, from a scientific point of view (even from a Popperian stance) the productive theory is better because it is in principle falsifiable. But the transmission theory doesn't seem easy to refute since that it is consistent with all the facts and with any imaginable fact, making it untestable. What do you think of this objection?

In the first place, the production theory – the idea that the brain produces the mind – has been convincingly falsified by the evidence. And holding on to a falsified belief is the antithesis of scientific thinking – it is ideological thinking.

But we need to be more clear here on what we mean by “theory,” and what we mean by “fact.” For instance, gravity is a fact of nature, yet we have theories of how gravity works. Similarly, evolution appears to be a historical fact – after all, there is the fossil record. Yet we also have theories of how evolution works.

Scientific theories are not speculation about isolated facts; they are tentative explanations about how certain facts fit together. When Isaac Newton proposed that a planet and the sun are attracted by a gravitational force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, he proposed a relation between masses and distances—a relation that of course became celebrated as the Newtonian theory of gravity.

So, the question is: do the facts seem to indicate that the brain produces the mind? Or on the contrary, do they seem to indicate that the brain works as a receiver-transmitter for the mind? I argue in my new book that an examination of all of the evidence indicates the latter. The evidence is not consistent with production, but is consistent with transmission. In other words, it seems to be a fact that the brain works as a receiver-transmitter. A scientific transmission theory would propose to explain how the brain works this way. There have been several such theories, most due to brain scientists such as John Eccles, or to physicists such as Henry Stapp and Evan Harris Walker. To the extent that these transmission theories are testable, they are scientific theories. And Walker’s theory makes several testable predictions – it is not, as you put it, “consistent with any conceivable fact.”

So, in a nutshell, that objection is based upon a common misunderstanding of what a scientific theory really is, and so confuses fact with theory.

7) Do you think the super-ESP hypothesis is a reasonable alternative explanation for the evidence suggesting an afterlife?

No, I don’t think ESP or the hypothetical super-ESP can explain the best cases. I deal with this issue in considerable depth in my third book, which I intend to release within the next two years.

8) Do you see any contradiction between reincarnation and evolutionary biology? Reincarnation seems to suggest a spiritual path parallel to the evolutionary process; but evolution being a purposeless and blind process, it seems implausible that there is exist an independent spiritual line corresponding to such evolutionary process.

Well, the key phrase here is “evolution being a purposeless and blind process.” That is an assumption, not a fact. It is an assumption that is based on a materialistic, atheistic worldview. Darwin himself could never fully believe this. If the facts strongly suggest or even indicate the reality of reincarnation, then it is pointless to say that “it seems implausible” given a certain assumption. That is dogmatic, a priori thinking. And by the way, I also deal with this issue in my third book.

9) Do you think that some cases of NDEs provide evidence for the survival hypothesis?

Yes, I deal with this at length in a full chapter of my new book Science and the Near Death Experience.

10) Do you think quantum mechanics is relevant for the discussion on consciousness, parapsychology and the afterlife?

Yes, of course! The problem with most of the so-called skeptics is that their worldview is based upon classical physics, which has been know to be fundamentally flawed since the early years of the twentieth century. As I said before, most of the deniers are psychologists and philosophers, not physicists. For instance, prominent deniers Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, and Susan Blackmore are all psychologists. Many prominent quantum physicists, such as David Bohm and Nobel prize winner Brian Josephson, have repeatedly stated that nothing in quantum mechanics rules out psychic abilities.

I have a whole chapter in my new book Science and the Near Death Experience called “Physics and Consciousness” which deals with this issue.

11) Some critics say that contemporary science is essentially naturalistic and secular; and has no room for supernatural, religious or quasi-religious concepts like the "soul", "reincarnation", "afterlife" or "God"? What do you think of this point of view?

Well, there are a lot of loaded terms in that question – “naturalistic”, “supernatural”, “quasi-religious.” By the way, when you read or hear criticisms that contain a lot of loaded terms such as “supernatural” and “quasi-religious,” that’s a good sign that you are dealing with a sophist.

If there is good evidence for reincarnation or the afterlife, then it is unscientific to ignore or deny that evidence. If they exist, then they are part of nature, and are not “supernatural.” The history of science shows that our view of what nature contains has been enlarged and expanded again and again; that is called scientific progress.

David Bohm defined the main characteristic of the scientific attitude as “openness to evidence.” The writer David Marshall wrote recently: “The best scientist -- or theologian -- is not someone who shouts 'heresy!' when he hears strange views, but one who listens carefully and responds with reason and evidence. When it comes to ultimate questions, 'openness to evidence' is the definition that counts."

12) In addition to your book (and forthcoming books), what books or literature on philosophy, parapsychology and the afterlife would you recommend to the readers of this interview?

I would recommend physicist Nick Herbert’s very entertaining book Elemental Mind. It’s a great introduction to the implications of the new physics for the mind/body problem.

13) Something else you would like to add to end the interview?

Yes. I would briefly like to say something about materialism and science. Materialists sometimes claim that the successes of modern science have been due to a materialistic outlook. But this is nonsense. The three men most responsible for the scientific revolution – Galileo, Kepler, and Newton – were not materialists. One of the reasons Galileo recanted his views is because he feared the Church would excommunicate him. Newton spent the last years of his life writing books on theology.

Materialism is an ancient philosophy that basically asserts that everything has a material cause, and it dates back at least to Democritus. It was thought to gain support from the physics of Isaac Newton, although Newton himself did not agree with this, and instead endorsed the dualism of Rene Descartes. It was the eighteenth century philosophes, such as Diderot and Voltaire, who spread the doctrine of materialism and mechanism, with the intention of combating the religious fanaticism and superstition common in their time.

The success of modern science has not been due to any particular philosophy of the relationship between mind and body, but rather to the principle of empirical hypothesis testing. Materialism as a scientific hypothesis makes two bold and admirable predictions: psychic abilities such as telepathy do not exist; and we will find no convincing evidence that the mind can operate without a properly functioning brain. But both of these predictions have been violated again and again, by evidence that stands up to the most severe critical scrutiny. Hence, it is unscientific to continue to believe in materialism. Those who do so today are either ignorant of the evidence, or have ideological motivations to dismiss it.

By the way, those who are interested in my new book Science and the Near Death Experience can learn more about it on Amazon, or by visiting the website of Inner Traditions publishers.

Links of interest:

-Website of Carter's new book Science and the Near-Death Experience.

-Chris Carter's article "Does consciousness depend on the brain?"

-Chris Carter's interview in Alex Tsakiris' podcast (here).

-Physicist Henry Stapp's recent paper "Compatibility of contemporary physical theory with personal survival"

-Read William James' lecture "Human Immortality"

-Read philosopher C.J. Ducasse's book "A critical examination in the belief in an afterlife"

-My other "subversive interviews"

In Memoriam of Martin Gardner: The founding father of the organized pseudo-skeptical movement died on May 22, 2010

Professional pseudo-skeptic, amateur magician, mathematician and prolific writer Martin Gardner, died on May 22, 2010.

Long before organized pseudo-skepticism were formally founded by materialist philosopher and atheist Paul Kurtz in the 70's, Gardner was a leading exponent of pseudo-skepticism and debunking with his pseudo-skeptical book Fad and Fallacies in the Name of Science, published in 1950. (This book was followed by many others of the same or similar kind) So, we can consider Gardner as the real founding father of the contemporary organized pseudo-skepticism.

Personally, I liked Gardner's books on mathematics and even some of his pseudo-skeptical books are funny and informative.

What characterized Gardner's books on pseudo-skepticism were his erudition, sense of humor (which Gardner used in an ad hominem way), arrogance, lawyerly prose and clear anti-paranormal bias. One of his main strategies on debunking was making bold, extremely confident and unsupported assertions and claims, which were useful to misguide and confuse näive, ignorant or biased readers (specially, materialistic atheists, whose anti-paranormal wishful thinking and typical epistemic/intellectual/cognitive malfunctiong made them extremely credulous and uncritical of Gardner's anti-paranormal falsehoods, misrepresentations and rhetoric)

For example, in his philosophical book of 1983, Gardner wrote:

How can the public know that for fifty years skeptical psychologists have been trying their best to replicate classic psi experiments, and with notable unsuccess? It is this fact more than any other that has led to parapsychology's perpetual stagnation. Positive evidence keeps coming from a tiny group of enthusiasts, while negative evidence keeps coming from a much larger group of skeptics

Commenting on Gardner's above assertions, professional parapsychologist Charles Honorton wrote in his classic paper "Rhetoric over Substance":

Gardner does not attempt to document this assertion, nor could he. It is pure fiction. Look for the skeptics' experiments and see what you find. (To his credit, Gardner did get one thing right: half a century is a more accurate time-frame than 100, 130, or 150 years.) The lack of research by critics serves to perpetuate the psi controversy by enabling them to shift continually from one line of criticism to another as each is successively answered through new research conducted by parapsychologists.

Gardner's above text is a fine example of his misleading pseudo-skeptical rhetoric.

Note, by the way, that even if Gardner were right about the "skeptical parapsychologists" failing to replicate psi, he never questioned if such supposed failing was due to the skeptic's own bias. Why should the bias, and its impact on the experimental results, run only in the direction of "enthusiasts" of psi? Is it implausible to think that a strong bias against the existence of psi can explain why the (imaginary) "skeptical psychologists" eager to research psi have failed to replicate psi experiments?

At least, one prominent skeptical psychologist, Donald Hebb, has conceded that 1)The evidence provided by Rhine for ESP is scientifically sufficient to convince us of any other issue; and 2) that his (Hebb) own rejection of that evidence is based on subjective opinion and personal prejudice: 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)

So Gardner favoring of the credibility of the results by the "skeptical psychologists" over the "tiny group of enthusiasts" (non-skeptical psychologists?) seems to be an arbitrary double standard to evaluate the scientific replication of psi and ESP evidence, and favors only the pseudo-skeptical (anti-ESP) position.

Like many other pseudo-skeptics, Gardner was also well known by his dogmatism. In the book "The New Inquisition", Robert Anton Wilson commented: "Mr. Gardner has an infallible method of recognizing real science and of recognizing pseudo-science. Real science is what agrees with his Idol and pseudo-science is what challenges that Idol. Colin Wilson has written, 'I wish I could be as sure of anything as Martin Gardner is of everything. Not all the Popes of the 20th Century collectively have dared to issue as many absolute dogmas as Mr. Gardner." (p.39)

What's interesting is that Gardner's pseudo-skepticism wasn't actually inspired by the ideologies of metaphysical naturalism and materialism. Rather, it was another ideology: the fundamentalist religious belief that scientific testing and research of supernatural and paranormal phenomena (like praying or healing at distance) is blasphemous. In his philosophical book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener" of 1983, Gardner wrote:

As for empirical tests of the power of God to answer prayer, I am among those theists who, in the spirit of Jesus’ remark that only the faithless look for signs, consider such tests both futile and blasphemous . . . Let us not tempt God. (p. 239).

So, Gardner's opposition to research these phenomena was not based on the assumed non-existence of them, but in the religious assumption that such research (according to Gardner) is a kind of offense to God. (Note that contrast with all the other professional pseudo-skeptics, like Randi, Shermer, Hyman, infidels writers, etc. whose hyper-criticism and debunking of psi research is grounded in the dogmas of metaphysical naturalism and materialism, which entail the non-existence of supernatural and paranormal phenomena and therefore the obvious relevance of such phenomena as evidence against the naturalist ideology/worldview.)

Whatever is your opinion about Gardner, one fact remains: he was one of the most important writers on pseudo-skepticism in the 20th Century, and any researcher of the organized pseudo-skeptical movement should to get familiar with Gardner's pseudo-skeptical literature, in order to know the best anti-paranormal rhetoric ever written.

Links of interest:

-Some notes on organized pseudo-skepticism

-George Hansen's overview of organized pseudo-skepticism.

-Geroge Hansen's recent post on Gardner.

-Section on Martin Gardner of the book The Trickster and the Paranormal by George Hansen.

-James DeMeo's critique of Martin Gardner's attack on Wilhem Reich's research.

SSE Talks - Remote Viewing the Lottery (Analysis) - York Dobyns

Links of interest:

-My two posts on materialist and professional skeptic Richard Wiseman's sympathetic concessions about the positive evidence for remote viewing and ESP in general (the here and here)

Science and the Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death by Chris Carter

This book hasn't been released yet, but it's available for Pre-Order in Amazon.com.

The author is philosopher Chris Carter, who as most of my readers know, wrote one of the best current books on parapsychology in print and an absolute must read (entitled Parapsychology and the Skeptics).

As promised in his previous book, Carter now turns his focus and sharp mind to the examination of the evidence for near-death experiences and the debate surrounding it in his newest book Science and Near-Death Experience: How Consciousness Survives Death.

According to the description of it in Amazon.com, this book:

• Explains why near-death experiences (NDEs) offer evidence of an afterlife and discredits the psychological and physiological explanations for them

• Challenges materialist arguments against consciousness surviving death

• Examines ancient and modern accounts of NDEs from around the world, including China, India, and many from tribal societies such as the Native American and the Maori

Predating all organized religion, the belief in an afterlife is fundamental to the human experience and dates back at least to the Neanderthals. By the mid-19th century, however, spurred by the progress of science, many people began to question the existence of an afterlife, and the doctrine of materialism--which believes that consciousness is a creation of the brain--began to spread. Now, armed with scientific evidence, Chris Carter challenges materialist arguments against consciousness surviving death and shows how near-death experiences (NDEs) may truly provide a glimpse of an awaiting afterlife.

Using evidence from scientific studies, quantum mechanics, and consciousness research, Carter reveals how consciousness does not depend on the brain and may, in fact, survive the death of our bodies. Examining ancient and modern accounts of NDEs from around the world, including China, India, and tribal societies such as the Native American and the Maori, he explains how NDEs provide evidence of consciousness surviving the death of our bodies. He looks at the many psychological and physiological explanations for NDEs raised by skeptics--such as stress, birth memories, or oxygen starvation--and clearly shows why each of them fails to truly explain the NDE. Exploring the similarities between NDEs and visions experienced during actual death and the intersection of physics and consciousness, Carter uncovers the truth about mind, matter, and life after death.

As any of the readers of Carter's previous book will know, he's a readable, thoughful and careful writer, and his Oxford-trained philosophical skills allow him to examine every argument in a rigurous, informed, philosophically sophisticated and objective way, without attacking any straw men.

Given Carter's excellent previous book, I'm sure his lastest one will be another masterpiece and, above all, an important and original philosophical and scientific contribution to the debate about the afterlife and near-death experiences.

An excerpt of this book can be read here.