Michael Shermer and his book Why People Believe in Weird Things? (like in Shermer's own fallacious arguments)

Shermer thinking hard about weird things (like how a vedic astrologer kicked Shermer's butt in his own debunking TV show)

In his highly influential (among pseudoskeptics and some "educated readers of science") book defending pseudoskepticism, Why people believe in weird things, professional pseudoskeptic Michael Shermer wrote:

Other popular ideas of our time that have little to no scientific support include dowsing, the Bermuda Triangle, poltergeists, biorhythms, creationism, levitation, psychokinesis, astrology, ghosts, psychic detectives, UFOs, remote viewing, Kirlian auras, emotions in plants, life after death, monsters, graphology, crypto-zoology, clairvoyance, mediums, pyramid power, faith healing, Big Foot, psychic prospecting, haunted houses, perpetual motion machines, antigravity locations, and, amusingly, astrological birth control. Belief in these phenomena is not limited to a quirky handful on the lunatic fringe. It is more pervasive than most of us like to think, and this is curious considering how far science has come since the Middle Ages. Shouldn't we know by now that ghosts cannot exist unless the laws of science are faulty or incomplete? (p.27. Emphasis in blue added).

It is very interesting and "amusing" that Shermer includes astrology among the "ideas" that little to no scientific support, since that Shermer's own scientific test of an astrologer provided positive empirical evidence for the astrologer's claim (kicking Shermer's butt in the process and making look him like a fool):

But let that pass. I'm more interested in Shermer's argument against ghosts. Shermer says Shouldn't we know by now that ghosts cannot exist unless the laws of science are faulty or incomplete?

Exactly which scientific laws (assumed by Shermer to be perfect and complete) exclude the existence of ghosts?

Shermer says "Do ghosts exist? Do scientific laws exist? Is there no difference between ghosts and scientific laws? Of course there is, and most scientists believe in scientific laws but not ghosts... Ghosts can be considered nonfactual because they have never been confirmed to any extent.... Ghosts never exist apart from their description by believers." (p. 58. Emphasis in blue added)

The above is an excellent example of atheistic-skeptical stupidity, imbecility and lack of logical thinking.

How the hell the premise (assumed for the argument's sake) that ghosts' existence "have never been confirmed to any extent" implies the conclusion that they "can be considered nonfactual"? Do the lack of scientific confirmation of any entity implies the entity's nonfactuality?

Just consider microbes. Before the creation of microscopes, microbes's existence wasn't scientifically confirmed. Do that imply that microbes were "nonfactual" before the creation of microscopes and their scientific confirmation? Obviously not.

Shermer's basic fallacy is to conflate an epistemological matter (scientific confirmation of the existence of an entity X) with an ontological one (the actual existence or non-existence of some entity X).

In fact, Shemer's argument seems to be "If an entity's existence is confirmed, then it exists. Hence, if it is not confirmed, then it doesn't exist". Even the most inept and incompetent student of logic would know that such an argument is actually a formal fallacy (the fallacy of denying the antecedent).

Another way to see Shermer's intellectual incompetence is realizing that he's conflating "scientific laws" with "scientific confirmation of facts". The latter doesn't imply the former.

For example, most parapsychologists consider that "psi" is a scientific fact. But they don't know exactly which are the "scientific laws of psi". The latter is still an open and controversial question.

Shermer assumes that, since ghosts have not been scientifically confirmed (in their existence), then ghosts are incompatible with currently known scientific laws. This is why he says: "Shouldn't we know by now that ghosts cannot exist unless the laws of science are faulty or incomplete?"

This is an obvious non-sequitur.

Finally, Shermer's argument rest on the very doubtul assumption that currently known scientific laws are perfect and complete. But as any student of philosophy and history of science would know, scientific theories (in which scientific laws are understood) are not perfect nor complete. Our grasping of reality is argueably fallible and progressive, not perfect and definitive (if it were the case, science couldn't progress anymore, which is false and this is conceded, inconsistently, by Shermer himself).

Shermer's amazingly strong and uncritical credulity regarding the perfection and completeness of currenty scientific theories and laws is astonishing. Is this the proper position of a true reasonable skeptic? Clearly not. Shermer (like most pseudoskeptics) is the paradigmatic anti-thesis of a true skeptic; he's a fine example of a hard-core ideologue: a scientific dogmatist and mainstream fundamentalist.

So far, we have assumed (just for the sake of the argument) that Shermer's assumption that ghosts haven't been scientifically confirmed is true. Personally, I think Shermer's assumption is false. There is evidence, anecdotal and scientific, that ghosts and other putative afterlife manifestations DO exist (see, just for mention one example, David Fontana's balanced and nuanced treatment of the topic in his book Is there an afterlife?")

In any case, even if ghosts don't exist, Shermer's arguments provide not justification at all to think they don't.

Shermer's arguments are of the worst kind that I've read in the pseudoskeptical literature. He's a good example of an intellectual lightweight who based on a very limited understand of science and philosophy, and a strongly prejudiced ideological position against parapsychology and other spiritual matters, has been strongly influential among pseudoskeptics and "educated scientific readers".

Only hard-core atheistic pseudoskeptics accept Shermer's arguments. And they deserve a "thinker" like that.

Atheist John W. Loftus says that Nothing = Balance of Energy and concedes the ultimate absurdity of atheism

Once you have bought into the atheist mindset, even the most irrational and obviously absurd idea is accepted provided it is useful to reject the existence of God. I call this the ultimate atheistic irrationality.

The most egregious example of this is the common atheist conviction that something fundamental (=the law of gravity, the law of entropy, the quantum vaccum, etc.) is equivlent to "nothing". Therefore (so the irrational atheist reasons), if you can explain something in terms of such laws, quantum vacuum, etc. you have successful to explain something from "nothing".

Only mentally retarded, intellectually deficient, stupid and inept people would conflate nothing (=non-being) with some fundamental (and hence, something actually existing) reality. This is why only hard-core atheists buy into this idea. Normal people (even ignorant ones) wouldn't be so irrational.

As philosopher Edward Feser recently wrote in a post entitled "What part of "nothing" you don't understand?": "You might as well say: “Let me explain how this whole house is held up by nothing. Consider the floor, which is what I really mean by ‘nothing.’ Now, the rest of the house is held up by the floor. Thus, I’ve explained how the whole house is held up by nothing!” Well, no you haven’t. You’ve “explained” at most how part of the house is held up by another part, but you’ve left unexplained how the floor itself is held up, and thus (since the floor is itself part of the house) you haven’t really explained at all how the house as a whole is held up, either by “nothing” or by anything else. Furthermore, you’ve made what is really just sheer muddleheadedness sound profound by using “nothing” in an eccentric way.

The “scientific” “explanations” of the origin of the universe from “nothing” one keeps hearing in recent years are really no less stupid than this “explanation” of the house. They aren’t serious physics, they aren’t serious philosophy, they aren’t serious anything except seriously bad arguments, textbook instances of the fallacy of equivocation."

In the case of Loftus, the fallacy of equivocation regarding "nothing" is committed when he conflates this term with the concept "balance of energy". But how the hell of the balance of something actually existing (namely, energy = the fundamental property of matter) is equivalent to "nothing" in the relevant, ontological sense of "non-being"?

Again, I'm being 100% serious, honest and sincere in my opinion that only people with strong intellectual deficiences and serious cognitive impairments can be so blind as to not realize the obvious fallacy of that position.

This is another reason why I'm convinced that, as a rule, hard-core atheists are irrational (I've recently called this position Jime's Iron Law, inspired in Shermer's Last Law).

Moreover, I'm also convinced that people like that are charlatans and deserve to receive public exposing and intellectual pounding.

A similar irrationalistic position is defended by atheist apologist Peter Atkins:

This evidence provides interesting insights into the psychology of contemporary atheists.

National Geographic documentary: The Truth Behind UFOs

Lynne McTaggart on Ryke Geerd Hamer theory of cancer

Lynne McTaggart

Dr.Ryke Geerd Hamer

Noetic scientist Lynne McTaggart has written several excellent books about parapsychological matters (e.g. the Intention Experiment or The Field) and one of her lastest book is entitled The Cancer Handbook, which is about cancer and the most effective therapies to treat it.

McTaggart comments about the controversial physician Ryke Geerd Hamer's theory about cancer. It seems to me that McTaggart unintentionally gives a misleading introduction to Hamer's theory (which is highly complex and very easy to misunderstand).

She begins saying that "Unlike most other practitioners, the work of the German cancer specialist Dr.Ryke Geerd Hamer concentrates almost exclusively on the causes of cancer" (p. 129)

This is a common misunderstanding and is demostrably false. It is true that Hamer's work began examining only cases of cancer, but since 1987 (see the first edition of his book Vermächtnis einer Neuen Medizin) Hamer's theoy embraces all the diseases known in medicine (except some congenital diseases, diseases by insufficience of nutrients, diseases by wounds, radiation and intoxications).

His lastest researches focuses on dental diseases (odontology) and mental diseases (psychiatry). (Unfortunately, the literature about it exists only in German, and it is not easy to get). For a recent explanation of Hamer's discoveries on mental illnesses by an independent author, see Björn Eybl's book Die seelischen Ursachen der Krankheiten: Nach den 5 biologischen Naturgesetzen, entdeckt von Dr. med. Mag. theol. Ryke Geerd Hamer.

McTaggart continues "Once the cause is recognized and faced, the cure will follow, he argues, as the body's own remarkable self-healing processes are freeded to come into play"

This is another misleading explanation of Hamer's view. It is not enough that the cause (the biological conflict) is "recognized and faced", but that such a biological conflict has to be SOLVED definitively (and in many cases it is very hard to get).

McTaggart: "In the case of breast cancer, the shock or trauma would have occured two to four months prior to the clinical detection of the cancer if the woman is right-handed"

This is another misleading statement which, taken literally, is false. According to Hamer, the laterality (the property of being right-handed or left-handed) is irrelevant regarding the TIME in which the cancer is clinically detected. Laterality only plays a role in the connection between the conflict and the organ which is affected, not regarding the time of the clinical detection of it.

By the way, McTaggart doesn't differentiate between glandular breast cancer (which can be detected just a few months after the conflict) and intraductal mammary carcinoma (which only could be detected after the solution of the conflict... a conflict which could last for years). Both cancer are clinically different (as any oncolologist could attest) and, from the point of view of Hamer's theory, conflictually different too (in addition to being qualitatively different in terms of the phases in which each tumour grows).

For more on breast cancer according to Hamer's theory, see these videos in youtube.

McTaggart makes other comments about Hamer's theory, but I think the above ones are the most wrong or misleading.

Some months ago, I interviewed a follower of Hamer's theory which you can read here.

For an introduction to Hamer's basic ideas on the origin of cancer and other diseases, watch this extensive documentary (press the "CC" bottom in the video below to activate the English subtitles):

Spiritualism, Jesus' Resurrection and the etheric body hypothesis

I've commented before that currently I'm studying intensively the best literature (in English and German) for and against the case for Jesus' Resurrection. In addition to books on atheism, philosophy, parasychology, and UFOs, my library is becoming increasingly filled with books, papers, videos and audios on New Testament scholarship and biblical criticism (something that 15 years ago was unthinkable for me).

I've been astonished by what appear to be the fact that most people (Christians and non-Christians) who has studied the evidence for and against the resurrection of Jesus in a more or less unbiased manner (specially, without naturalistic-atheistic prejudices), comes to the conclusion that at least something paranormal (or even supernatural) happened in that case.

For example, in my interview with Michael Prescott, when asked about Jesus and his putative Resurrection, Michael commented: "I do think he was a real historical figure and that the gospels provide at least a generally reliable overview of his ministry, though undoubtedly with omissions and embellishments. As for the resurrection, I do believe that Jesus' followers witnessed his reappearance after his death. I think what they were probably seeing is what spiritualists today would call the etheric body, which can have physical attributes and yet do things that an ordinary earthly body can't do, like vanish at will. I suspect that Jesus chose his disciples in large part because they had latent psychic abilities of their own, which might have helped them to perceive the etheric body"

Michael, who is not himself a Christian, has a good command of the relevant literature and his conclusion is not only that the gospels provide at least a generally realiable overview of his ministry, but in addition that one of the facts mentioned as evidence for Jesus' Resurrection (namely, Jesus' apparitions after his death) was historical and hence explainable in terms of the "Etheric body hypothesis" (not the hypothesis of Jesus' literal resurrection).

Robert Perry, another author who is not himself a Christian, when asked about Jesus' Resurrection, comments: "I think the evidence for it is surprisingly good, and should not be dismissed on the grounds that such a thing is impossible. I have found value in the arguments of conservative scholars on this, whose work I otherwise disagree with. I have especially been influenced by the testimony of Paul in this regard, who within a few years of Jesus’ death spoke with those who were there and witnessed the risen Jesus. And I have also been heavily influenced by the Shroud of Turin, the evidence for which is actually quite remarkable, notwithstanding the (now discredited) 1988 carbon dating"

Robert is convinced by the evidence that Jesus' Resurrection was a real historical event. In addition, he brings to the debate the consideration of the Shroud of Turin as part of the evidence. I admit that previously I've considered the Shroud of Turin a fraud. Currently, however, I'm more open to the view that it could be real, but I'm still agnostic about it. This is still a topic which I haven't researched in depth.

I mentioned Michael and Robert because they're people familiar with parapsychology, afterlife research and the literature for and against Jesus' Resurrection, and they are convinced by the evidence that it was a real event, or that something real (from a paranormal origin) is the cause of it (like in Michael's case).

The Etheric Body Hypothesis of Jesus' Resurrection:

I must confess that I was sympathetic for this hypothesis, according to which the Resurrection was actually the vision of Jesus' etheric body by his disciples.

Also, I think this hypothesis is widely shared by spiritualists, since they tend to interpret the putative resurrection of Jesus in terms of known in spiritualistic circles (namely, in terms of etheric bodies and mediumship materializations).

Currently, I don't find this hypothesis convincing anymore. The main reason is that I think this hypothesis (in comparison with the hypothesis of Jesus' Resurrection) lack explanatory scope, because it only accounts for the vision by the disciples of Jesus after his death, but it doesn't account:

1-For the empty tomb

2-If Robert is right, for the Shroud of Turin

Let's stick just to point 1, the empty tomb (point 2 is even more controversial).

My current assesment of the literature suggests that the empty tomb is accepted as a probable historical fact by most New Testament scholars, Christians and non-Christians alike (by "most scholars", I'm simply suggesting more than 50% of them. I doesn't require to be an overwhelming majority).

Just consider what agnostic New Testament scholar and critic of the resurrection Bart Ehrman (in his work/lecutres The Teaching Company 2003, lecture 4) has to say about the empty tomb:

We also have solid traditions to indicate that women found this tomb empty three days later. This is attested in all of our gospel sources, early and late, and so it appears to be a historical datum. As so I think we can say that after Jesus’ death, with some (probably with some) certainty, that he was buried, possibly by this fellow, Joseph of Arimathea, and that three days later he appeared not to have been in his tomb" (emphasis in blue added).

Ehrman considers that with "probably some certainty" we can assert the historiticity of the empty tomb. This is everything what a historian needs (since a 100% certainty about historical events is almost never available for a historian).

If we follow Erhman in this sense, then whatever hypothesis we use to explain the historical data relevant to assess Jesus' Resurrection has to account for the empty tomb. The resurrection hypothesis accounts for it, for the visions of the disiciples (and other individuals) and by the origin of the Christian belief.

But the "etheric body hypothesis" accounts only for the visions of the disciples and, possibly, for the origin of the Christian belief, but not for the empty tomb (the etheric body is different than the physical body) and hence the defender of the etheric body hypothesis has to add another ad hoc hypothesis (not supported by independent historical evidence) to account for the empty tomb (e.g. to say that the corse was stolen) which implicitly concedes that its explanatory scope is inferior to the resurrection hypothesis. Or, alternatively, he has to deny the empty tomb (and in this case, he has to provide arguments for this view and show why Erhman's conclusion, shared by most scholars, is false).

There are scholars who have made tried hard to argue against the empty tomb. For example, in his amazingly erudite book Resurrecting Jesus , Dale Allison examines several arguments for the empty tomb and find them wanting. However, he admits that at least a respectably case could be made for the empty tomb but, he adds, also a respectable case could be made against it (Allison mentions just 2 arguments against it, which I found largely unconvincing).

I was even more convinced of the empty tomb, as a probable historical fact, after reading Allison's argumentation (that a amazingly erudite intellectual and sophisticated scholar like Allison cannot refute this evidence actually tends to reinforce the evidence for the empty tomb).

In conclusion, I do share with Erhman and Robert Perry that "the evidence argues for an empty tomb" as the most probable historical conclusion.

This is why I cannot accept the etheric body hypothesis, unless the evidence for it (and against the empty tomb) were stronger. And I think this evidence doesn't exist.

This is why I think, in this point, that the hypothesis of Jesus' Resurrection only could be rejected on a priori philosophical grounds, namely, appealing (like Erhman) to Hume's arguments against miracles (an argument which also has been used by "skeptics" against paranormal and afterlife claims).

But Hume's argument is unconvincing, and this is why I accept the best evidence for afterlife and other paranormal claims. Therefore, on the same grounds, I have to be open to Jesus' Resurrection if the evidence for it (as it appears) is reasonably good (better than the alternatives).

For a non-technical critique of Hume's argument against miracles from a point of view of parapsychology, see Chris Carter's chapter in his book "Parapsychology and the Skeptics" (now entitled Science and Psychic Phenomena). For a more technical critique, see agnostic philosopher of science John Erhman's book "Hume's Abject Failure" (this was the book that William Lane Craig mentioned in his debate with Bart Erhman, which destroyed Bart totally. Bart Erhman simply hadn't any technical reply at all and ineptly misrepresented Craig's argument against Hume as a "mathematical argument for God's existence" which obviously was not the case. Craig made use of the contemporary Bayesian calculus of probabilities in order to show that the improbability of a miracle is partially determined by the improbability of God's existence. Bart Erhman main reply was that a historian, qua historian, cannot claim that a miracle has happened, which is a red herring since the topic of the debate wasn't "Can a historian in his function as historian to explain a historical event in miraculous terms?" Rather, the topic was about if the hypothesis Jesus' Resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence or not, regardless of whatever are the historian's methodological contrains).

I've mentioned purely evidential reasons to think that the spiritualistic "etheric body hypothesis" is inferior than the resurrection hypothesis.

But there is another reason why I think it is the case. In the context of Jesus' teachings and religious social enviroment (which was prepared in advance by the Jewish history and the persistent interventions of "Yahve" in the Old Testament), the resurrection seems to be a kind of validation of his moral and doctrinary claims about God's Kingdom. Put simplistically, it is as if he was saying "Look, as I told you in advance, I've been resurrected, therefore believe in what I taught you and trust me. I cannot give you more details but I hope you trust me based on the resurrection as the ultimate proof that I've given to you.".

Now, if Jesus' putative "resurrection" wasn't a resurrection at all but simply the expression of his etheric body as seen by the disciples, then I see no reason why such an event would validate Jesus' teachings in particular. After all, spiritualists have given evidence that the etheric body exists, and not "God's Kingdom" is needed to believe in this (in fact some spiritualists are atheists and hence for them the God's Kingdom has to be literally false).

I simply see no comparison between Jesus' Resurrection (and its spiritual and even theological implications) with what spiritualists, by purely empirical means, have discoveried.

I suspect that Jesus was talking about something even more profound (and hard to understand to our minds) that the spiritualistic findings of the existence of an afterlife and related matters (e.g. "spirits", "etheric bodies", mediumship communications, etc.).

My conclusion is that if Jesus' Resurrection was real, then we have in presence of an exceptional and special historical event with astonishing implications, a lot more important and trascendental than whatever the afterlife research has shown or could show.

Michael Shermer's Last Law: UFOs, God and the extraordinary faith of atheists

Shermer looking at an UFO

In Scientific American, atheist and "skeptic" Michael Shermer explained what he modestly calls Shermer's Last Law. This law states: "Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God"

Expanding on this, Shermer says: "God is typically described by Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent. Because we are far from possessing these traits, how can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us? We can't. But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI!"

This is an amazingly inept argument typical of Shermer and other atheists like him. God having the attributes of "omniscience and omnipotence" has nothing to do with us (i.e. it is not measured nor defined by their relations with our finitude).

Shemer asks "How can we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely from an ETI who merely has them copiously relative to us".

Answer: Appealing to other attributes of God like inmateriality. Are these aliens material? Then, by definition, they're not God (whatever be the alien's advanced technology).

Or eternity: Have these aliens existed eternally in their current state, or do they began to exist and have evolved by natural selection? If the latter, then by definition they're not God (regardless of the aliens' advanced technology), because God is by definition an ontologically necessary (and hence eternal) being not subject to natural selection nor other contingent, material processes.

Or their creative powers: Are these aliens the "cause" of the universe's beginning of existence out of nothing, or are they an evolutionary effect of the universe's material evolution under the pressure of natural selection? If the latter, then the aliens are not God.

That Shermer's argument is plain stupid is revealed by his misconstruction of the concept of God: "But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than we are, then by definition the deity would be an ETI"

Bravo!!!! What amazing display of philosophical knowledge and logical thinking! Obviously, if I define God like that, then "by definition" the deity would be an ETI.

The problem is that not sophisticated theist in the history of thought has ever been so stupid as to defend the concept of God on that grounds that God's knowledge and power is simply "relatively" superior than us.

Shermer is typically superficial when he discusses whatever matter. The same sloppy arguments can be seen in his discussions about ufology, parapsychology, afterlife research or ingelligent design or any other topic. Among professional skeptics, I think Shermer is clearly the most inept. He's an intellectual lightweight.

By the way, we can criticize the formulation of Shermer's Last Law on the following grounds:

1-If Shermer's law is true, then atheists should deny (not only doubt) the existence of advanced aliens, since whatever reason they have against God's existence is a reason to deny advanced aliens too. However, a hard-core atheist like Richard Dawkins has reportdly said that "he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet."

Let aside the fact that (for dialectical purposes alone) we can reply to Dawkins' "alien creationist hypothesis" with his own style of argument: "Dawkins, your alien hypothesis doesn't explain anything because the aliens in question remain themselves unexplained". But obviously we're not so stupid to argue like that (see more on Dawkisian arguments here).

The point is that Dawkins is open to the alien hypothesis instead of the God hypothesis, which implies the former is distinguishable from the latter (therefore, for Dawkins, Shermer's Law has to be false).

2-If Shermer's Last Law is true, then an eventual contact with ETI would imply the empirical destruction of atheism (since, in Shermer's idiosyncratic definition, such ETI would be relatively superior than us in terms of knowledge and power, and hence by Shermer's own definition would be a DEITY. And the existence of a deity implies the falsehood of atheism).

Is this the reason why pseudoskeptics also attack ufology?

3-Shermer's Last Law has other implications. For example, it provides atheists with a reason to reject whatever evidence is presented for God's existence, since they could argue that it is caused by ETI.

If God appeared to the entire world tomorrow with undeniable and irrefutable evidence, Shermer would argue that such evidence is insufficient because it is indistinguishable from the evidence provided by an advanced alien. Therefore, according to Shermer’s Last Law, God could never (even in principle) give enough evidence for an atheist to conclude that God exists. It makes atheism empirically unfalsifiable and hence unscientific!

This is the ultimate protection for atheism. It is like arguing that Jesus' Resurrection (if it is an actual historical fact) doesn't provide evidence for Christianity, or that actual physical and direct voice mediumship (if veridical) doesn't provide evidence for survival of consciousness. No unbiased researcher would accept these conclusions.

When you see a person arguing like that, you'll know for sure that her idiosyncratic and prima facie implausible position is strongly determined by what they reject. It is a matter of the WILL. In the case of atheists, what they reject is the existence of God, therefore they use whatever reason is at their disposal to protect their atheistic worldview from falsification.

In a way similar to Shermer's law, atheist philosopher J.J.Smart (who, contrary to Shermer, is an intellectual heavyweight) comments: 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)

Smart concedes that he prefers to think himself has gone mad instead of accepting hard empirical evidence for God's existence. This is the FAITH OF AN ATHEIST (at least Smart is honest enough to recognize it).

Another example of this is atheist Quentin Smith, who prefers a non-explanation whatsoever instead of an explanation based on God. Commenting on the origin of the universe, Smith writes: "The fact of the matter is that the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing... We should instead acknowledge our foundation in nothingness and feel awe at the marvellous fact that we have a chance to participate briefly in this incredible sunburst that interrupts without reason the reign of non-being ." (Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Comsology. P.135. emphasis in blue added)

Note that having for reasons the "no reason at all" and "coming from the reign of non-being" is sufficiently comfortable to an atheist when confronted with the origin of the universe. Smith prefers a "no reason at all" as a reason to hold his atheism.

This is an example of the extraordinarily strong faith of an atheist. (Even the most dogmatic religious believer would provide a reason for his beliefs: he will say that "God did it. Period." This could be dogmatic and childish but it is at least intelligible as a reason. But compare that dogmatic reason with Smith's "no reason at all" and "coming from nothing". Seriously I ask you: What position requires of more faith?)

Do you think seriously and honestly that people like intellectual lightweight Shermer, and heavyweights Smith and Smart are honestly open enough to accept even the best evidence for God's existence?

Think about this please, because it will give you amazing insights about the psychology of atheists and pseudoskeptics.

Inspired by Shermer's Law, I'd want (modestly too) postulate what I'd call Jime's Iron Law. It states: "As a rule, hard-core atheists are irrational, suffer of severe wishfull thinking and have a cognitive impairment which prevents them to think logically in general and specifically about God, parapsychology, afterlife research and other topics which tends to destroy atheism. As consequence, they will always prefer a non-explanation at all over an explanation in terms of paranormal, spiritual and/or supernatural forces or entities (even if the evidence for the latter is very strong)"

I'll have to develop Jime's Iron Law (sounds good, isn't?) in more detail in future posts.

Budd Hopkins - Alien Abduction Lecture - 7th July 2004