November 2010 | Yahoo-Sports-blog-subversivethinking

In Mexico, atheists Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Matt Ridley debate theists William Lane Craig, Rabbi David Wolpe, and Douglas Geivett on the question "Does the Universe have a purpose?".

This is the first time that seasoned debater and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, the foremost defender of sophisticated philosophical arguments for God's existence, cross swords with zoologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, the format of the discussion didn't enable a long and detailed confrontation between them, only a brief exchange of comments.

I'd like to watch a formal debate between Craig and Dawkins about God's existence, but I doubt such debate will occur, since Dawkins fully knows that he won't win it (in fact, Dawkins has made public his desire of NOT debating Craig). I wish such debate, not because Dawkins's case is compelling (I think it's very weak), but because I'd like to see Dawkins' unsophisticated arguments being fully refuted and publicly exposed in front of the audience.

So, this is the first and probably the last time that you'll see Craig in the same public forum than Dawkins!

Enjoy.

PS.

Note that the topic is "Does the Universe have a purpose?". Keep in mind this crucial point, specially when you watch th atheists' case, specially Michael Shermer's arguments defending the idea that each of us has valid and good purposes in life (what the hell has that to do with the topic in question?)

Red herrings and straw men are the speciality of seasoned atheist apologists.

You'll be the judge.

Addendum:

In a recent internet communication, William Lane Craig comments on his meeting with Richard Dawkins, previous to the conference: "The reception was held at the house of Professor Andres Roemer, the conference organizer. It soon became clear that he is not your ordinary professor. He is a well-connected entrepreneur, media personality, and a big-time promoter in Mexico. His house is a three-story building facing a park, old on the outside and opulent on the inside (one whole wall open to the outdoors was covered with brilliant, orange marigolds). At the reception, Professor Roemer shocked me by telling me that Michio Kaku didn’t want to be part of our debate (he later described himself to me as “a waffler”), and so Richard Dawkins was on the panel instead! I could scarcely believe my ears! It just seemed unbelievable that Dawkins and I were going to finally cross swords in a public forum.

We were then taken by bus to a second reception back at the hotel. As I stood there, talking with other conference presenters, I saw Richard Dawkins come in. When he drew near, I extended my hand and introduced myself. I remarked, “I’m surprised to see that you’re on the panel.”

“And why not?” he replied.

“Well,” I said, “You’ve always refused to debate me.”

His tone suddenly became icy cold. “I don’t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.” At that, he turned away.

“Well, I hope we have a good discussion,” I said.

“I very much doubt it,” he retorted and walked off.

So my first encounter with Richard Dawkins was a pretty chilly one!"

It's already old news that in 2009 Paul Kurtz, known as the "father of secular humanism" and the founder of the pseudoskeptical organization CSICOP (now called CSI for propagandistic reasons) has resigned from the Center For Inquiry (CFI) group due to that group's intolerance (an intolerance that Kurtz has endorsed for years).

According to Kurtz' own entire statement: "The celebrating of "Blasphemy Day" by the Center for Inquiry by sponsoring a contest encouraging new forms of blasphemy, I believe is most unwise. It betrays the civic virtues of democracy. I support the premise that religion should be open to the critical examination of its claims, like all other institutions in society. I do have serious reservations about the forms that these criticisms take. For example, cartoons have been recently circulated ridiculing key figures in Christianity, such as a cartoon depicting a feminine Jesus painting his "nails" with red nail polish, or the drawing of the Pope with a long nose like Pinocchio.

When we defended the right of a Danish newspaper to publish cartoons deploring the violence of Muslim suicide bombers, we were supporting freedom of the press. The right to publish dissenting critiques of religion should be accepted as basic to freedom of expression. But for CFI itself to sponsor the lampooning of Christianity by encouraging anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, or any other anti-religious cartoons goes beyond the bounds of civilized discourse in pluralistic society. It is not dissimilar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the Nazi era. Yet there are some fundamentalist atheists who have resorted to such vulgar antics to gain press attention. In doing so they have dishonored the basic ethical principles of what the Center for Inquiry has resolutely stood for until now: the toleration of opposing viewpoints.

It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance. One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society. I apologize to my fellow citizens who have suffered these barbs of indignity."

Readers of my blog know that one of the insights that I've had studying the pseudoskeptical movement for so many years is that, with some exceptions and qualifications, in general the cognitive faculties of metaphysical naturalists, secular humanists and materialists don't function properly. It means that the mind of these individuals is not rational anymore, because their rationality has been destroyed and impaired by spiritual, psychological and ideological reasons.

I'm more convinced that the above is true than I'm convinced for the evidence for an afterlife (that is, I think the afterlife probably exist, but my conviction about it is less strong than my conviction that the cognitive faculties of hard-core atheists, naturalists and materialistic pseudo-skeptics don't function properly. I'm reasonably sure these people are irrational, and demostrably so)

Examining Kurtz's statament, we have more evidence of the irrationality of secular humanists, materialists and metaphysical naturalists and their severely and permanently impaired cognitive faculties. Let's to comment Kurtz's statement in more detail:

-Kurtz comments on the CFI's dogmatists: "The celebrating of "Blasphemy Day" by the Center for Inquiry by sponsoring a contest encouraging new forms of blasphemy"

My God. Do you imagine a bunch of adults participating in a contest for creating "new forms of blasphemy"? Do you imagine an atheist, feeling very happy and "superior" after having won the trophy "The CFI champion for the world's most original blasphemy"? Honestly, do you consider it an activity proper of sane, socially adapted, spiritually advanced, psychologically stable, rational individuals?

Rational and sane people like to participate in contests related to sports, debates or even video games, not to "new forms of blasphemy".

Even sane, psychologically stable, non-ideological atheists would laugh of such ridiculous activity and wouldn't participate in it for reasons of respect and self-respect.

-Kurtz also comments on the childish nature of atheistic dogmatists and ideologues: "For example, cartoons have been recently circulated ridiculing key figures in Christianity, such as a cartoon depicting a feminine Jesus painting his "nails" with red nail polish, or the drawing of the Pope with a long nose like Pinocchio"

Again, do you think any adult person approving, engaging and having such behaviour is sane, stable, mature and rational? Do you imagine a adult man attacking Jesus with so ridiculous and childish actions like depicting Jesus with red nails? Is it a rational, scientific-minded behaviour? Of course not. They're the actions of spiritually negative, psychologically insane, intellectually inferior, socially inept, morally handicaped individuals.

I think that is another reason why hard-core atheists and propagandists for atheism are the most distrusted minority in USA. This atheistic irrationality possibly also explain why atheists tend to become social outcasts in America and other societies, and this is not my opinion, but the own confession of Richard Carrier, a champion of atheistic apologetics and propagandist for metaphysical naturalism: "as atheists know better than anyone else on the planet, if you say you don’t believe you often become a social outcast" (Sense and Goodness without God, p. 269)

Carrier is right, but the deeper question is: Why do atheists become social outcasts? My answer: because hard-core atheists, materialists and naturalistic ideologues, like the members of CFI that Kurtz is criticizing, are irrational, hostile, socially inept and spiritually negative people. Like it or not, this is the truth.

Keep in mind that these are the same irrational individuals who attack the evidence for parapsychology and afterlife research, and spirituality in general. They are attracted by negative actions, they are like a team of destruction instead of a team of construction and positivity. And this is exactly what we'd expect and predict of irrational, fanatical, negative and hostile people.

By the way, another interesting thing that I've discoveried studying atheist ideologues and dogmatists is their consistent use childish, puerile and infantile ideas, attacks or critiques. I'm using "childish", puerile and infantile in the literal sense, that is, as something proper of children. This suggest that hard-core atheists had a personal experience when they were children, which caused their hostility to God, spirituality and religion. They're stuck in a pre-teen personality (this also could explain why they use analogies of Santa Claus, unicorns and fairy tales when criticizing scientific evidence for psi or the afterlife; or why they use drawings of the Pope with a long Pinocchio's nose. Note that all of these attacks are related to child stories and characters. These materialistic and naturalistic ideologues are not only irrational, but inmature and extremely childish too, which is another insight we have to keep present when examining the psychology of these dogmatists and ideologues).

For example, I don't remember having laugh louder that when I read Richard Carrier's childish and infantile fantasies of a "Secular Humanist Heaven" in his book Sense and Goodness without God, fantasies which are mostly based on Star Trek (I'm not kidding you). I've' read ridiculous things and delusions, but it is far beyond of what I could take.

For example, conceding his inspiration in Star Trek, Carrier writes that the "Secular Humanist Heaven" is "a world rather like that in Star Trek: The Next Generation" (p. 405).

Consistent with his Star Trek wishful thinking, and expanding his wild childish fantasies, Carrier suggests the possibility of inmortality in naturalism: "We might even make immortality possible. It may even happen that, in the fullness of time, we will be able to transfer our minds, by transferring the patterns of our brains, into computer-simulated worlds that are in even more perfect regulation than the physical world, a true paradise. And this simulated universe, and the computers that produce it, would itself be a self-sustaining, self-maintaining, self-repairing, self-expanding artificial organism. It is possible it will never die" (p. 406)

Keep in mind that such claims come from a self-proclaimed "skeptic", someone who supposedly doesn't believe in scientifically unsupported claims or fantasies!

Trying to formulate an original argument against God's existence, natural atheologian Carrier writes: "Since there is no observable divine hand in nature as a causal process, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no divine hand. After all, that there are no blue monkeys flying out my butt is sufficient reason to believe that there are no such creatures, and so it is with anything else"(p.273)

What amazing piece of atheistic and naturalistic philosophy!. (See an analysis of Carrier's argument in this post) Seriously, this is what we'd expect from a person with a pre-teen personality, a person clearly stuck in his childhood years.

The point is that such childish critiques are not uncommon in the atheistic and naturalistic literature. And this provides more evidence for the hypothesis that the cognitive faculties of these individuals don't function properly, they're irrational and their personalities are infantile.

Another example of the puerile and childish personality of atheistic dogmatists and ideologues is the silly attempt of many of them to call themselves "brights". But as philosopher Edward Feser has commented: "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." (The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, p. 3)

So, I'm not surprised at all by the "paintings and cartoons against Jesus" by the irrational atheists mentioned by Kurtz. This is exactly what we should to expect from irrational people.

-Kurtz comments that "Yet there are some fundamentalist atheists who have resorted to such vulgar antics to gain press attention. In doing so they have dishonored the basic ethical principles of what the Center for Inquiry has resolutely stood for until now: the toleration of opposing viewpoints"

I'd like to comment that the reason why the members of CFI don't respect their "basic ethical principles" is that consistent naturalists know that metaphysical naturalism doesn't provide a foundation for objective moral values, duties, principles and laws. For consistent atheistic materialists and naturalists, moral values are subjective, man-made and therefore they're not obligated to follow or respected them.

Naturalist and atheist philosopher Keith Augustine has powerfully and compellingly defended such position: "I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe, there can be no objective moral laws"

An important factual concession is seen there: the self-perception of atheists is that moral laws (and we can add: principles, duties and values) are not objective. Objective moral laws don't exist to materialistic atheists and naturalists, according to their own self-perception.

But more importantly to our present discussion, is Keith's insight: "It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them"

The parts in blue reveal the actual and key self-perception of atheists regarding the nature of ethical codes and, more importantly, the respect for moral laws and duties. If such duties and laws are not objective, and are purely man-made, why the hell should human beings respect or follow them? There is not actual ethical reason to follow them, except purely prudential, strategical and conditional motives to do it (e.g. if you don't want to be a social outcast, you should respect the codes of society. But this respect is purely strategical and prudential, not due to an objective moral and ethical nature of the rules in question)

Now, we're in position to understand why the CFI members don't follow the (man-made according to them) ethical principles of tolerance and respect. In their self-perception, they're not actually and objectively obligated to follow such principles (nor any other ethical principle, for that matter... except for prudential or strategical reasons alone). If breaking such ethical rules is strategically useful to destroy religion, parapsychology and spirituality, a consistent naturalist will support such unethical actions. Ethical rules have a purely utilitarian usefulness, not any intrinsic and objective moral value.

In fact, it's a little bit hypocritcal for Kurtz to complain that CFI dogmatists don't follow their self-imposed ethical principles, when Kurtz himself (as a consistent naturalist) has rejected the objectivity of moral values and duties. In his book "The Forbidden Fruit", Kurtz himself argued: "The moral principles that govern our behaviour are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion" (p. 65)

If it's true, then it's also valid for CFI's arbitrary moral principles governing the actions of their members. So, why the hell should the CFI's dogmatists to respect such principles, if breaking them is more useful in certain cases to destroy the image of Jesus and religion?

Given Kurtz' own worldview (metaphysical naturalism) he is in not position to reject the CFI's members actions on the basis of (objective) ethical considerations. After all, as naturalist and secularist philosopher and darwinian biologist Maximo Pigliucci has argued: "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." (See Pigliucci's arguments in his debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig)

We have to recognize Kurtz for criticizing the irrationality of CFI's dogmatists and fundamentalist atheists. But Kurtz is far from being innocent of intolerance and dogmatism against religion, and specially against the scientific research in parapsycology. As Marcello Truzzi (an original member of Kurtz' CSICOP) wrote: "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"(emphasis in blue added)