For most part, professional pseudo-skeptics are smart enough to appearing themselves in public as open minded, objective scientific evaluators of the evidence for parapsychology, impartial inquirers without an axe to grind against the evidence for psi phenomena. However, whoever is familiar with the pseudoskeptical literature or history will know that it's false (the mere fact that these individuals belong to debunking organizations with the explicit purposes for defending materialism and naturalism, which are incompatible with psi evidence as explained in this post, suffices to prove it).
But sometimes, we found some pseudo-skeptic who makes public and explicit his prejudices and bias, in a open and free manner. Note that these individuals can be very competent in their own field of expertise, but when it comes to debating about the paranormal, they become irrational and sometimes admittedly so (this suggests that their extreme hostility to psi research, spirituality and a fortiori to the possible existence of God or a trascendent realm has emotional, spiritual and psychological roots, as I've discussed in this post)
And clarifying example of this is psychologist and neuropsychologist Donald Hebb, a first-rate scientitic researcher in psychology. Back in 1951, Hebb wrote:
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)
Note Hebb's concession that his own personal rejection of psi evidence (which he considered Rhine has offered sufficient evidence to have convinced us in almost any other issue) is, in the literal sense, a PREJUDICE.
At least, we should congratulate Hebb by his honesty in explicitly accepting that his pseudskeptical position is not based on science or evidence, but in pure personal prejudice.
You won't see this level of intellectual honesty in most professional pseudo-skeptics, because their job consists precisely in creating the public illusion that they're talking in the name of science and reason, and not in defense of their personal prejudices rooted in psychological and ideological (i.e. materialistic, atheistic and naturalistic) motives.
If a first-rate, highly competent professional scientist like Hebb cannot escape from the materialistic prejudice against psi evidence (and he had the courage to concedes it explicitly), what would you expect from the normal, common, ordinary, intellectually mediocre materialistic pseudo-skeptic?
I feel intellectually, spiritually and specially ethically obligated to publish the evidence about the possible dangers and destructive intellectual, moral, psychological, emotional, existential and social consequences of a consistently assumed and practicized metaphysical naturalist and atheistic materialist worldview. In part, because such worldview is the ideological basis of pseudo-skepticism; and in part because, regardless of whether the paranormal exists or not, I don't want to see society being destroyed by the consistent and rigurous application of the naturalistic and materialistic beliefs.
But you don't need to accept my opinion at face value. Perhaps your first impression is to consider my opinion to be an overstatement, or an exagerated, biased or extreme view. As a matter of fact, I think my view is rationally justified by the evidence, and this post will give you some of this evidence that support my opinion, so you can decide by yourself.
I only ask you one thing: Examine carefully all of these citations, and ask yourself the 5 following questions while you read each citation:
-What would happen if most people on Earth become believers or active followers of such a beliefs and, consistently, apply them to themselves and others?
-Are these beliefs psychologically and emotionally healthy?
-Are they rational and likely to be true?
-Do they provide a reasonable basis to have a purpose for life?
-Are they constructive for society and the future generations?
You are the judge. Think hard and carefully about these questions and don't let anybody to influence your opinion.
(Note: I've included all of these citations as permanent quotes in the right side of my blog. I've given the specific reference in each case, so you can check the information by yourself if you want to. I could mention 100 or 200 citations more, but I think this brief summary is enough to make the point.)
NATURALISTS AND MATERIALISTS IN THEIR OWN WORDS:
-Being a philosopher, of course I would like to think that my stance is rational, held not just instinctively and scientistically and in the mainstream but because the arguments do indeed favor materialism over dualism. But I do not think that, though I used to. My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it: Though the arguments for dualism do (indeed) fail, so do the arguments for materialism. And the standard objections to dualism are not very convincing; if one really manages to be a dualist in the first place, one should not be much impressed by them. My purpose in this paper is to hold my own feet to the fire and admit that I do not proportion my belief to the evidence. William Lycan's paper "Giving dualism its due" (emphasis in blue added)
-"You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons". Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis (p. 3. Emphasis in blue added)
Compare Crick's view with this video where atheist Peter Atkins suggests too that we're nothing:
-A brain was always going to do what it was caused to do by local mechanical disturbances. Daniel Dennett, in his contribution to A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind (p.247).
Note: Think about the implications for society, morality, moral choice and moral responsability, if Dennett's materialistic view is right.
-In a deterministic universe, we understand that a criminal's career is not a matter of an unconditioned personal choice, but fully a function of a complex set of conditions, genetic and enviromental, that interact to produce the offender and his proclivities. Had we been in his shows in all respects, we too would have followed the same path, since there is no freely willing self that could have done otherwise as causality unfolds. There is no kernel of independent moral agency -- we are not, as philosopher Daniel Dennett puts it, "moral levitators" that rise above circunstances in our choices, including choices to rob, rape, or kill.Tom Clark, Director of the Center for Naturalism, in his article "Maximizing Liberty". Emphasis in blue added.
--The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. Richard Dawkins in River Out Of Eden (p.155. Emphasis in blue added).
-Now, if you then ask me where I get my 'ought' statements from, that's a more difficult question. If I say something is wrong, like killing people, I don't find that nearly such a defensible statement as 'I am a distant cousin of an orangutan... I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police.
I realise this is very weak, and I've said I don't feel equipped to produce moral arguments in the way I feel equipped to produce arguments of a cosmological and biological kind. But I still think it's a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths. Richard Dawkins in this interview. (emphasis in blue added)
-There is a non-overlapping and exhaustive distinction between ideas that are false or true about the real world (factual matters, in the broad sense) and ideas about what we ought to do – normative or moral ideas, for which the words ‘true’ and ‘false’ have no meaning. Richard Dawkins, ‘Afterword’ in John Brockman (ed.), What Is Your Dangerous Idea?, (London: Pocket Books, 2006), (p. 307)
-The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.Richard Taylor in his book Ethics, Faith, and Reason (pp.2-3).
Compare Taylor's view with Dawkins' quote above.
-The moral principles that govern our behaviour are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion. Paul Kurtz in his book Forbidden Fruit (p.65)
-The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics isillusory. Michael Ruse, The Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics, in the Darwinian Paradigm (pp. 262-269. Emphasis in blue added.)
-If ... there are ... objective values, they make the existence of God more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have ... a defensible argument from morality to the existence of God. J.L.Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (pp. 115-116)
-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.
Moral laws are maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions are to be deemed moral or immoral. But how could such laws exist in the absence of any mind or sentience in the universe at all? Are moral laws objective in the way that laws of nature are? They do not seem to be, for few would argue that "murder is wrong" existed in some Platonic realm of ideas when galaxies were forming over ten billion years ago and there was no sign life or consciousness anywhere in the universe. The use of the word "law" implies an objective existence of unchanging moral maxims independently of sentience. Yet it appears that there can be nothing objective about so-called "moral laws", because it seems absurd on its face to say that maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions of sentient beings are moral or immoral could exist in the absence of sentience.
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.
...But ethics does not come into play in the history of the universe until very recently--when Homo sapiens appeared. It is possible that moral laws have existed since the Big Bang, but that they could not manifest themselves until sentient beings arose. However, such a view implies that there is some element of purposefulness in the universe--that the universe was created with the evolution of sentient beings "in mind" (in the mind of a Creator?). To accept the existence of objective moral laws that have existed since the beginning of time is to believe that the evolution of sentient beings capable of moral reasoning (such as human beings) has somehow been predetermined or is inevitable, a belief that is contrary to naturalistic explanations of origins (such as evolution by natural selection) which maintain that sentient beings came into existence due to contingent, accidental circumstances. If objective moral laws are part of the natural universe (not part of some supernatural realm), then the universe cannot be unconscious--it must be, in some unknown sense, sentient. Few naturalists would want to accept such a nonscientific pantheistic conclusion. Keith Augustine, in the original version of his online paper "Defending Moral Subjectivism".Emphasis in blue added.
(Note: Keith has informed me that currently he has new opinions about these meta-ethical questions and that it's likely he'll update his online article. But I've mentioned the original version of his article because it summarizes in a rigurous philosophical form the subjectivism and relativism implied by naturalism, as evidenced by all the citations on morality by the naturalists quoted in this post. In fact, I consider that if naturalism is true, Keith's above argumentation is impeccable and his conclusion irrefutable. Obviously, I don't think that naturalism is true...)
-Naturalism", I believe, is often driven by fear, fear that accepting conceptual pluralism will let in the "occult", the "supernatural. Hilary Putnam, in his contribution for the book "Naturalism in question"
-How is it that so many philosophers and cognitive scientists can say so many things that, to me at least, seem obviously false?... I believe one of the unstated assumptions behind current batch of views is that they represent the only scientifically acceptable alternatives to the anti-scientism that went with traditional dualism, the belief in the immortality of the soul, spiritualism, and so on. Acceptance of the current views is motivated not so much by an independent conviction of their truth as by a terror of what are apparently the only alternatives. That is, the choice we are tacitly presented with is between a "scientific" approach, as represented by one or another of the current versions of "materialism", and an "unscientific" approach, as represented by Cartesianism or some other traditional religious conception of the mind. John Searle in The Rediscovery of the Mind, pp. 3-4.(Emphasis in blue added).
-Naturalism is, indeed, inherently skeptical. Naturalism naturally gives rise to skepticism and the naturalists’ only way of answering such skepticism is to beg the skeptic’s question. Radical skepticism is not, as naturalists tend to think, a dispensable feature of the new scientific account of man but its natural corollary.David MacArthur in his paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"
Note: MacArthur is not referring to skepticism of the paranormal (e.g. CSICOP, Randi, etc.), but to philosophical skepticism: (roughly, the doctrine that we have basis to doubt the possibility of knowledge).
-If there is no purpose to life in general, biological or human for that matter, the question arises whether there is meaning in our individual lives, and if it is not there already, whether we can put it there. One source of meaning on which many have relied is the intrinsic value, in particular the moral value, of human life. People have also sought moral rules, codes, principles which are supposed to distinguish us from merely biological critters whose lives lack (as much) meaning or value (as ours). Besides morality as a source of meaning, value, or purpose, people have looked to consciousness, introspection, self-knowledge as a source of insight into what makes us more than the merely physical facts about us. Scientism must reject all of these straws that people have grasped, and it’s not hard to show why. Science has to be nihilistic about ethics and morality. Alex Rosenberg, in his article "The Disenchanted Naturalistic Guide to Reality"
-If beliefs are anything they are brain states—physical configurations of matter. But one configuration of matter cannot, in virtue just of its structure, composition, location, or causal relation, be “about” another configuration of matter in the way original intentionality requires (because it cant pass the referential opacity test). So, there are no beliefs. Alex Rosenberg, in the comments on his article mentioned above.
Note: If there are no beliefs, is the belief in naturalism or in science rational? Judge by yourself the intellectual consequences of naturalism.
-There is no room in a world where all the facts are fixed by physical facts for a set of free floating independently existing norms or values (or facts about them) that humans are uniquely equipped to discern and act upon. Alex Rosenberg, same article.
-I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life... My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Thomas Nagel in "The Last Word" (see a comment on it here). Emphasis in blue added.
-In our worldview, we are just another tiny byproduct of nature, special in no sense to anyone but among ourselves, subject to a plethora of ramdom accidents and forces, and there is no perfect or supreme being at all, least of all us. Richard Carrier in his book Sense and Goodness without God (p. 259)
-When we have exhausted all options, and still conclude there is no longer any prospect of happiness, death becomes an acceptable alternative.Richard Carrier, same book (p.342. Emphasis in blue added)
Metaphysical naturalism is a WORLDVIEW that excludes the existence of paranormal phenomena, like telepathy, precognition and remote viewing (this is the explanation why professional "skeptics" like Shermer, Randi, Hyman, Wiseman, members of infidels.org, etc. are all of them metaphysical naturalists and precisely by this reason, they're "skeptics" of psi).
Therefore, if any of you accept the existence of such phenomena, you have (as a matter of logical necessity) to reject metaphysical naturalism as a worldview.
This ridiculously obvious point is, for rhetorical and debating purposes, obfuscated and denied by some believers in metaphysical naturalism, who try to present metaphysical naturalism as simply an "hypothesis" or a "definition" without any ontological implication regarding specific aspects of reality (like morality, consciousness, etc.). The definition or hypothesis in question would be that naturalism is simply the view that "there is not God nor immaterial souls", and more widely that "The supernatural doesn't exist or is not causally efficacious on the natural world"
This re-definition strategy could be useful to fool people ignorant of the naturalist literature, but will make laugh aloud any person who has objectively and critically studied the leading literature on naturalism. And specially, this strategy will cast doubt on the intellectual honesty of any naturalist defending it (see below).
The motivation for this strategy rests on the realization that the implications of naturalism are at worst self-refuting or, at best, argueably inconsistent (as has been realized by first rate naturalist philosophers themselves like Alex Rosenberg; and by the naturalist authors of the excellent book Naturalism in Question).
In fact, this strategy is a very good evidence of the extreme weakness of naturalism, and how the believers in such worldview have to make use of desperate methods (even denying their own papers and words) to keep naturalism alive (even if it includes a straightforward distortion of the naturalist position). It's clearly a faith based position.
Fully realizing the flaws and incoherences of naturalism, clever apologists for naturalists attempt to redefine naturalism as simply a "definition", without any implication beyond atheism (or the denial of inmaterial souls). It would be simply a definition or an hypothesis, not a worldview at all. In other words, naturalism would be simply a word or name for anti-supernaturalism.
Therefore (so they argue) the existence of objective moral values, of abstract mathematical objects (which are non-physical!), of intentionality, of consciousness, or even of a psi phenomena like telepathy or remote viewing wouldn't affect at all the naturalist position, because no such phenomena proves that existence of God or inmaterial spirits (which are, supposedly, the only entities excluded by naturalism).
This ad hoc effort of saving naturalism from criticisms are specially COMICAL when the people using such strategy belong to a naturalist/secularist organization, like Internet Infidels, which explicitly mention naturalism as a WORLDVIEW and define their purpose and goals in terms of a defense of such worldview, as you can read in the Infidels official website: "The Secular Web is owned and operated by Internet Infidels Inc... a nonprofit educational organization nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet. Naturalism is the "hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system" in the sense that "nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it." As such, "naturalism implies that there are no supernatural entities," such as gods, angels, demons, ghosts, or other spirits, "or at least none that actually exercises its power to affect the natural world. And without miraculous interventions into nature from a spiritual realm, neither prayer nor magick are more effective than a placebo" (emphasis in blue added)
Note that naturalism excludes the efficacy of "praying" (as something more than a placebo) and, therefore, of healing at distance by the influence of spiritual forces. Therefore, the following scientific evidence for healing at distance and the efficacy of praying would refute naturalism according to the Secular Web:
In the section entitled "Why Internet Infidels", you can read: "As the only truly equal opportunity information medium, the Internet represents our best hope for promoting a naturalistic worldview to the wider public" (emphasis in blue added)
In his article "Defending Naturalism as a Worldview", naturalist Richard Carrier wrote: "Real naturalists call naturalism (in the broadest sense, typically qualified as metaphysical naturalism) a worldview, not a research program. Naturalism is a total belief system regarding what exists, typically and appropriately contrasted with Traditional Theism, Philosophical Taoism, and the like. And we certainly can argue that everyone ought to be a naturalist in that sense: all we have to do is (3.) show that everyone ought to adopt the same research program (as I have just done for basic empiricism) and (4.) show how the available facts, in light of that research program, imply naturalism more than any other worldview." (Emphasis in blue added)
Note that "real naturalists" call naturalism a worldview. Therefore, if Carrier is right, self-proclaimed "naturalists" who deny that naturalism is a worldview ARE NOT real naturalists. They're fake naturalists or simply charlatans (and I'd add, they're self-deluded or intentionally dishonest, since they belong to, defend and support organizations whose explicit goal and purpose is EXPLICITLY defined in terms of a defense of the naturalistic WORLDVIEW)
You could be thinking: Why is Jime stressing such ridiculously obvious point? Does anybody doubt that naturalism is a worldview? Well, very few people actually doubts that naturalism is a worldview (and, as naturalist Carrier says, no "real naturalist" would doubt it), but believe me, I know some self-proclaimed naturalists who, defeated by evidence and philosophical arguments against naturalism, have cleverly redefined their position to make it inmune to sound objections.
They realize that naturalism as a worldview is easier to refute than naturalism as a mere "definition". And therefore, given their monumental faith in and wishful thinking for atheism, they realize that it's strategically useful for debating purposes to defend the latter version of naturalism (naturalism as a defintion alone) instead of the former (naturalism as a complete wordlview).
To be honest, I consider that one a predictable strategy in believers of any position whose position rest mostly on FAITH. For these people, reason and arguments are only valid provided they support their faith. Contrary evidence and arguments are undermined, relativized, misrepresented or ignored, because their acceptation would destroy their entire position.
They honestly see themselves as rational and truth seekers, but it's clearly (and maybe unconsciously) a self-delusion, psychologically created to protect an irrational faith in naturalism and rationalize the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance felt when contrary evidence is presented.
Again, the use of such rhetoric to redefine naturalism when confronted with psi evidence and philosophical arguments is strong evidence of the severe intellectual (and emotional) insecurity of these fake naturalists and above all of the extreme weakness of their belief system.
Evan Fales, metaphysical naturalist and paranormal phenomena.
Naturalist philosopher Evan Fales, a serious professional philosopher (some of whose articles have been published in infidels.org), has argued that paranormal phenomena is evidence AGAINST metaphysical naturalism. This is important, because professor Fales' point is correct even if, for the sake of the argument, we accept the fake naturalist's arbitrary redefinition of naturalism as a mere hypothesis or definition and not as a complete worldview.
In the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, professor Fales wrote: "A variety of paranormal effects, were they genuine, would provide evidence for supernatural beings, disembodied human minds, or nonnatural forces. They include alleged cases of reincarnation, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, and out-of-body experiences, especially those associated with near-death episodes (NDEs). Because such phenomena suggest the possibility of extra-bodily existence, of nonphysical channels of communication between minds, and of minds influencing distant physical objects directly, they have attracted the attention not only of laypeople but of philosophers." (p.130. Emhpasis in blue added)
Note that professor Fales includes clairvoyance (and therefore remote viewing) and psychokinesis as phenomena that, if genuine, would provide evidence for the supernatural and, therefore, AGAINST metaphysical naturalism.
But remote viewing has been proved, as has been conceded even by materialist skeptic and professional debunker Richard Wiseman: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven" (for further discussion of this concession and how Wiseman "wisely" tries to avoid accepting the evidence, see my post here)
If Wiseman is right, and given Fales' point that remote viewing would support the supernatural, and provided we're rational thinkers, we're intellectually forced to conclude that metaphysical naturalism IS FALSE.
In a sillogistic mode:
1-Remote viewing is evidence for the supernatural (and therefore against naturalism)
2-By the standards of any other area of science (i.e. scientific standards commonly used in science) remote viewing is PROVEN.
3-Therefore, by the commonly used and accept scientific standards, the supernatural has been proven (which entails that metaphysical naturalism is false)
Fales, who's not an expert in psi research, reject premise 2 (and for this reason, he reject the conclusion of the argument), but Richard Wiseman, who's a long time professional debunker of psi research, agrees with premise 2 (but, by philosophical reasons discussed in this post, he believes that even if remote viewing is proven by science, it's still unacceptable!)
But note that the above argument will be convincing for an agnostic or neutral reader with not axe to grind against the premises of the argument. After he studies the evidence objectively, and how the force of evidence has forced professional skeptics like Wiseman to make that kind of concessions, he'll agree with the conclusion of the argument.
Real naturalists will accept premise 1 (fake naturalists will reject premise 1 to avoid refutation of naturalism on the basis of psi evidence)
Real naturalists will fight violently to reject premise 2 (because they know that if they accept it, their worldview is demolished). Like real naturalists, fake naturalists will fight violently to reject premise 2 (because they know, intuitively and implicitly, that accepting it destroys naturalism, even if they deny that for debating purposes or as a way of self-delusion to avoid cognitive dissonance)
Conclusions:
-Naturalism is a worldview
-Real naturalists agree with point 1 and openly defend it. Only fake naturalists disagree with it (mostly, as a way to protect their faith from falsification)
-Naturalism excludes psi phenomena, like remote viewing or precognition.
-There are good evidence for remote viewing and precognition.
-Even professional skeptics, like Richard Wiseman, agree that the evidence is good enough to consider some of these phenomena as "proven". (Wiseman's disagreement is philosophical, not based on technical or scientific flaws of the evidence for the phenomena in question)
-It follows that naturalism is false.
-The falsehood of naturalism explains their unability to explain consciousness, intentional and the objectivity of abstract objects (like propositions and moral values).
-From all the points above, it follows that it's IRRATIONAL to believe in naturalism, given the whole of the evidence (including psi evidence).
-Therefore, believers in naturalism are either ignorant of psi evidence or irrational, or both things simultaneously (the latter is very common in online naturalists, atheists and pseudo-skeptics, specially the strident ones).
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has published a paper by Professor Henry Bauer, entitled "HIV tests are not HIV tests", where Dr.Bauer explains that the scientific evidence clearly shows that a positive HIV test does not mean that a person has or will get AIDS. It doesn’t even mean that he has HIV. Rather, it is a test for antibodies, either to HIV or to something that cross-reacts with it.
For more information, visit Dr.Bauer's website and watch this scientific lecture on the lastest AIDS and HIV research by Dr.Bauer:
Being a non-Christian, but as someone ethically and intellectually opposed to atheistic materialism, secular humanism and metaphysical naturalism, and strongly sympathetic to spirituality in general, supporter of dualism and curious about Christian philosophy, I consider Williams' book the best current critical examination (by a trained philosopher) of contemporary atheism.
I hope to write a long and detailed review of William's book in some moment, because there is much food for thought in it and I have some constructive philosophical criticism to it too. But a justification of these criticisms would require to write a full review with quotes from Williams's book, to make justice to his case and avoid misrepresentations and cavils.
Honestly, I think Christians, non-Christians, agnostics and even open mind atheists will benefit greatly from a careful reading of and hard thinking about Williams' excellent book.
Links of interest:
-My post on Peter Williams' modified version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
In these videos, John Polkinghorne, David Wilkinson, Rodney Holder, Peter Williams and Graham Swinerd discuss the scientific evidence which suggest the universe points out to the reality of some intelligent creator or God (or spiritual realm, if you want).
Watch the videos with an open, unbiased and critical mind, and be the judge.
Donald Hebb 
