The self-confirmatory delusion induced by metaphysical naturalism and atheistic materialism. Lessons from J.J.C.Smart on how to protect your worldview

J.J.C. SMART

People with extensive experience dealing with hard-core metaphysical naturalists and atheistic materialists would know that it's impossible to convince them that there is good evidence against metaphysical naturalism and materialism. All the kind of fallacies, misdirections and irrationalities will be thrown into your face in order to avoid confronting seriously your evidence or arguments. He even will use objections that he himself regards as false (this is a clear sign of desperation and dishonesty, by the way).

Prominent naturalist and first-rate atheist philosopher J.J.C.Smart explains the real reason underlying these atheistic irrationalities: "Someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one... Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle's Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their position. I don't know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad-- I would probably go mad" (J.J.C. Smart in his contribution to the book Atheism and Theism, pp.50-51. Emphasis in blue added)

Please, read the above argumentation two or three times, and think very hard about it (and compare with your own experience discussing parapsychological and spiritual matters with materialistic pseudo-skeptics and naturalist ideologues). It's absolutely essential that you compare Smart's point with your own real-life experience arguing with materialistic ideologues and pseudo-skeptical dogmatists.

I ask you: Do you think a person with the naturalistic preconceptions that Smart is talking about will accept the scientific evidence for psi phenomena (telepathy, remote viewing, etc.) or for the afterlife?

More importantly, do you think that a naturalist like that is a real TRUTH-SEEKER? Is such naturalist prepared to find and accept actual evidence for the supernatural, paranormal or non-natural, provided such phenomena are evidentially available to the naturalist? Obviously not, since the naturalist will intepret the evidence against naturalism as a confirmation of naturalism (or at least, as an evidence which doesn't refute naturalism). In the example given by Smart, the evidence of the Apostle's Creed in the stars is interpreted as evidence for Smart's own dreaming or mental deficiency, but NEVER as evidence for the supernatural (i.e. evidence against naturalism).

Can you understand why pseudo-skeptics and metaphysical naturalists are hypocritcal and intellectually dishonest when they say that "I'd accept psi/afterlife phenomena, if good evidence is presented"? (you can change "psi/afterlife claims" for whatever other claim that, if true, refutes metaphysical naturalism).

No "good evidence" is ever enough for the naturalist, because as Smart correctly points out, a naturalistic interpretation of the anomalous event is (for the naturalist believer) always more plausible than a non-naturalistic, paranormal or supernatural one. The naturalist always interprets the evidence in terms of his naturalistic and materialistic prejudices, even if he has to assume obviously false or irrational positions.

For example, watch this embarassing video where naturalist and atheistic materialist Peter Atkins, confronted by the evidence against naturalism presented by William Lane Craig, argued that nothing exists (Atkins's extreme hostility to the idea of God and his faith in materialism is so monumentally and extraordinarily powerful that he prefers to believe that nothing exists before accepting the possibility that naturalism is false):

In normal conditions, atheistic materialists won't defend such obvious and self-refuting falsehoods and irrationalities like Atkins'. In order to watch them defending fallacies and silly positions like that, you need to press them hard with good evidence and solid arguments. In that case, you'll see the naturalist's hidden irrationalities, hostility to spirituality and defective cognitive faculties to express themselves with full power.

I myself have debated with naturalists who, confronted with my arguments that metaphysical naturalism is a worldview, have denied such thing claiming that it's only an hypothesis (as if the hypothetical character of it is incompatible with it being too a worldview) even when they belong and defend atheistic organizations which defines explicitly naturalism as a worldview (see for example the explicit reference to naturalism as being a worldview in infidels.org: "The secular web is.... dedicated to promoting and defending the naturalistic worldview on the internet")

It's a clear sign of desperation, intellectual dishonesty and severely impaired cognitive faculties. It's impossible and extremely boring and annoying to keep a rational debate with people like these, since they're not in the bussiness of getting the truth, but in the one of defending the naturalistic preconceptions and beliefs which Smart mentioned.

Another example of the extreme irrationality of materialistic atheists and metaphysical naturalists, when pressed hard with good arguments against their position, can be watched in the following video: (See atheist Lewis Wolpert's monumentally irrational reply to one of Craig's arguments):

My comments on this video can be read here.

Now you're in position to understand why pseudo-skeptics use the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" gambit when debating about psi/afterlife evidence. They need it, in order to avoid accepting evidence contrary to naturalism/materialism. As Smart mentiones, for naturalists, naturalistic explanations are always more plausible than the paranormal, supernatural or non-naturalist alternatives, so your evidence or arguments against naturalism always be insufficient for them.

If you mention this to some materialistic pseudo-skeptic, probably he strongly deny such thing. He will say and stick to the view that if the evidence is good, he'll accept it (and in the same time, he'll discredit the source of the evidence, will use the "extraordinary claims..." gambit, will invent naturalist-compatible but purely speculative scenarios, etc. in order to reject your evidence.)

When you understand that, you'll be in position to predict, almost with absolute certainty, the actions and arguments of pseudo-skeptics when confronted with good evidence. You'll know their likely answers long before they think about it.

And you'll understand that these individuals are intellectually impaired, i.e. their mind functions in a way that actively prevent them to think rationally and discover the truth (specially, when the truth is incompatible with naturalism and materialism). You can empirically test this pressing them hard in debates (or watching debates like the ones mentioned above).

You won't believe the extreme irrationalities they're prepared to defend in order to avoid your arguments against materialism and naturalism.

Even they'll defend straighforward and intellectually dishonest lies in order to defend naturalism. For example, in this video, the founder of infidels.org Jeff Jay Lowder said that "Naturalists who accept the Big Bang model do not believe that the Universe just pop into existence out of nothing"



This is demostrably false and Lowder knows it. In a debate published in Lowder's own website, naturalist philosopher Michael Martin argued: "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" (Emphasis in blue added)

Can you see why is it impossible to discuss rationally and honestly with people like that?

Spiritual Reality: Near Death Experiences Documentary (2010)

Joseph Morris: 40 Insightful Articles About Near Death Experiences (NDEs)

Joseph Morris' website has an interesting collection of online top articles on NDEs, both from a survivalist perspective as from a materialistic perspective.

An interesting online resource on NDEs information.

Christopher Hitchens has an advanced metastasic cancer of esophagus

As it is well known for the readers of my blog, the main targets of it are materialistic pseudo-skeptics, debunkers and metaphysical naturalist ideologues in general. However, my opposition and criticisms to these ideological individuals and groups is purely intellectual and ethical, not personal. I have no personal animosity or hostility to these people as such, but to their false, irrational, inmoral and socially dangerous beliefs and methods of suppression of knowledge and evidence incompatible with the metaphysical naturalistic ideology and the materialistic-atheistic agenda.

As consequence, and even though I accept survival consciousness as a probably existent reality, I must admit I feel very sad by the recent news about atheist Christopher Hitchens suffering of an advanced cancer of esophagus (it's advanced, since in his case such cancer has made metastases to the lungs and lymph node). It's a very advanced stage of esophageal cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society website, in the case of an advanced esophageal cancer with distant metastasis, the rate of survival after 5 years is only of 3%.

Read Hitchens' recent own account of his experience with cancer diagnosis in this link.

Hitchens comments that "Against me is the blind, emotionless alien, cheered on by some who have long wished me ill. But on the side of my continued life is a group of brilliant and selfless physicians plus an astonishing number of prayer groups."

It's paradoxical and curious that a man who has made his life trying to destroy religion and Christianity is admittedly receiving (from religious people, we have to suppose) a lot of praying intented to help him in his recovery.

Hitchens also comments (half ironically, perhaps): "My father had died, and very swiftly, too, of cancer of the esophagus. He was 79. I am 61. In whatever kind of a “race” life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist"

In any case, personally, I wish to Hitchens a full recovery from his disease, and I hope to see him again debating about God's existence with other scholars and thinkers (as philosopher William Lane Craig destroyed him in a previous debate, I'd like to see Hitchens again against Craig in a second round).

But if Hitchens losses eventually his battle with cancer, I wish him a good beginning in the new spiritual journey of the "afterlife" (I hope that his spiritually negative and hostile books have no important consequences to his own spiritual evolution in the afterlife).

Finally, watch this recent interview with Hitchens, where he comments his views on cancer and other matters:

Theodore Schick Jr and the What Caused God? atheisic objection: another example of atheistic misdirections and fallacies in philosophy of religion

 In a previous post, I argued how an atheist philosopher (Michael Martin) intentionally misrepresented the cosmological argument for God's existence, in a debate with a Christian apologist.

These kind of atheistic misdirections and fallacies are very common, and this is exactly what we'd expect if atheism is false. Given that metaphysical naturalism (the foundation of contemporary atheism) is not based on true premises, it cannot refute the best counterarguments except through a consistent misrepresentation of them (and of other contrary evidence). It's mostly grounded on myths and fallacies, which are perpetuated in order to avoid that the believers in naturalism learn and correctly interpret the actual refutations of naturalism. (All the ideologies have that kind of self-protective mechanism in order to survive among their hard-core followers)

In my previous post, I argued that atheist/naturalist ideologues consistently present the statement "Everything has a cause" as the basic premise of the traditional cosmological argument for God's existence. Having misrepresented the actual argument, they commonly proceed to refute such argument arguing "If everyting has a cause, then God has a cause too. Therefore, it's impossible that God be the first uncaused cause, so the cosmological argument is self-refuting"

Obviously, an atheist ideologue arguing like that simply cannot understand the fact that no one of the best philosophical theists defending the cosmological argument has ever defended it on the grounds of the "everything has a cause" premise. Despite of this fact, atheist ideologues continue to use such fallacy. This is evidence that the cognitive faculties of these people don't function properly or that they're intentionally dishonest (or both things)

To use another factual example of how an atheist philosopher commits such fallacy, please read this article by atheist and naturalist philosopher Theodore Schick Jr., published in the leading website of the internet materialistic and naturalistic believers, Infidels.org.

In that article, Schick Jr. comments that "The traditional first-cause argument rests on the assumption that everything has a cause. Since nothing can cause itself, and since the string of causes can't be infinitely long, there must be a first cause, namely, god. This argument received its classic formulation at the bands of the great Roman Catholic philosopher, Thomas Aquinas "(Emphasis in blue added)

But this is simply, radically, factually and demostrably false. As has commented philosopher Edward Feser: "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" (emphasis in blue added)

Even some atheists, unaware of their solid and consistent ignorance, arrogantly ask: "If everything has cause, what caused God?" This ridiculous atheist question (intented to be a fast and smart refutation of the cosmological argument) has been called "sophomoric" (or typical of colleges' sophomores) by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig (a contemporary and sophisticated philosophical defender of the cosmological argument):

So you can ask: if not one of the best philosophical defenders of the cosmological argument has argued from the "Everything has a cause" premise, why the hell atheist ideologues keep repeating such straighforward lie? Is it intellectual honest? Is it rational?

 The answer, according to my experience and opinion, is twofold: 1)As a rule, the cognitive faculties of hard-core materialists and naturalists don't function properly, that is, their mind is essentially irrational, illogical, incapable of thinking straight as a consequence (possibly) of spiritual and psychological factors. And 2)As a rule, they're intellectually dishonest (note that 2 could be a consequence of 1, since an irrational person tend to be impaired to recognize objective values like honesty).

Let's to examine Schick Jr.'s reply to Thomas Aquinas' cosmological argument. Schick Jr. quotes directly, from an Aquinas' work, this formulation of the cosmological argument:

In the world of sensible things, we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known ... in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go to infinity, because . . . the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate, cause . . . therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name god.

Please, read carefully and objectively (two or three times, or more if you need it) the above Aquinas' quotation. Now, I ask to my dear readers the following straightforward question: In the above Aquinas' text in blue, where the hell is Aquinas saying that "evertyhing has a cause"?

The most inept, irrational, ignorant, stupid person would easily see that in no place of that quotation the premise "evertyhing has a cause" (or that "everything is caused by something other than itself") is mentioned, defended or implied at all.

In fact, Aquinas explicitly limits his premise to the "world of sensible things" (and therefore, of contingent things), which doesn't include God since God is not a "sensible thing" (i.e. we cannot "see" God, He's not an object of our sensory experience, therefore is not part of the "world of sensible things"). So, he's not arguing from "everything", but specifically and only from the known order of efficient causes existent in the world of sensible things.

As has commented philosopher Edward Feser in his lastest book on Aquinas (an excellent introduction to Aquinas' philosophy): "Let us note first (and yet again) that Aquinas does not say, here or elsewhere, that "everything has a cause"; rather, he begins the argument by saying that there are efficient causes and that nothing can cause itself. The implication is that if something is caused, then it is something outside the thing being caused that is doing the causing... Aquinas is committed in particular to the principle of causality, according to which that which comes into being, or more generally, that which is contingent, must have a cause. Needless to say, this is not the same thing as to claim that everything without exception has a cause" (Aquinas, pp 81-82. Emphasis in the original)

However, a "professional philosopher" like Schick Jr. ineptly "constructs" the above Aquinas' argument in this way:

Saint Thomas's argument is this:

1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.

As seen, premise 1 of Schick Jr.'s straw man only exist in Schick Jr.'s (and other atheist believers) imagination. It's pure fiction.

Having constructed such straw man, Schick Jr. proceeds to easily demolish it: "The most telling criticism of this argument is that it is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false"

Bravo!. What amazing display of philosophical sophistication, intellectual power, historical knowledge of classical philosophy and interpretative charity. A typical atheist masterpiece.

In future posts, I'll present more evidence of atheist philosophers attacking the (imaginary) "everyhting has a cause" premise of the cosmological argument.

You'll learn that contemporary atheism, grounded on metaphysical naturalism, is a faith-based ideology constructed on misrepresentations, contantly repeated lies and logical fallacies like the ones mentioned here. And you'll understand such fallacies are almost a constitutive part of the naturalistic worldview because such worldview is (when examined philosophically and critically in depth) extraordinarly weak, and cannot be defended rationally.

And don't waste your time trying to explain this to these atheist individuals. Intellectually, most of them simply cannot understand the difference between the (imaginary) "Everything has a cause", and the actual premise of the traditional versions of the cosmological argument (e.g. Whatever begins to exist has a cause or Whatever is moved is moved by another).

The hard-core atheistic materialist's impaired cognitive faculties and irrationality prevent him to reach to this level of conceptual, logical and semantical distinction.

Rene Jorgensen on the evidence of Life After Death

Visit Rene Jorgensen's website.