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?