In a second experiment, Heywood and Bering compared 27 people with Asperger’s with 34 neurotypical people who are atheists. The atheists, as expected, often invoked anti-teleological responses such as “there is no reason why; things just happen.” The people with Asperger’s were significantly less likely to offer such anti-teleological explanations than the atheists, indicating they were not engaged in teleological thinking at all. (The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.)

Romans 1:18-20 reads,

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (ESV)

Obviously, my title is loaded, in that I take it for granted that God is the truth. Though only a single study and by no means sufficient to justify broad conclusions, these preliminary findings seem to directly confirm Scripture. The study suggests what the Scriptures declare: that atheists have internal access to the truth of God’s existence just as much as anyone else—that they naturally reason teleologically—but that they “reject” or “suppress” it.

Who would have thought?

In his post Killer Game, Vox Day, internet “superintelligence,” writes:

I don’t believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.

Absolutely nothing to argue about? Is he for real?

Vox’s use of “established empirical fact” led me to believe he’d linked to, you know… something like credible scientific research supporting his claim. What did he actually link to? A single non-scientific article discussing a subset of Japanese women who seem to have taken a liking to Tatsuya Ichihashi, the Japanese student who allegedly murdered teacher Lindsay Ann Hawker. Does Vox’s claim that “raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman” follow from the fact that a subset of Japanese women have idolized this guy? Hardly. Perhaps some female commenters can offer their own opinions.

I’m skeptical of Vox’s claim. Are these Japanese women indicative of all women? Might it be more likely that these women represent the fringe? Have social scientists investigated Vox’s claim? Furthermore, that a subset of Japanese women idolize this guy says nothing about the degree to which they are or are not attracted by gentlemen. Maybe in some weird, twisted way, they actually see Ichihashi as a gentleman? Unless he’s alluding to some hitherto undisclosed sources, Vox is clearly pulling stuff out of his behind here. For all his dictionary fetish, he apparently operates under his own definition of “established empirical fact” and then makes the hasty generalization that the actions of a few Japanese women are indicative of women.

Hence, the illogic of Vox Day.

Well, I have to admit: she’s right. She did tell me what to do, just a few comments prior. In response to my claim that she deletes comments critical of Vox and the blog—and by implication, comments that support my criticism of Vox and the blog—she said,

…and so, what did I do? Why, I did exactly what she asked for! She asked me to back up the “naked” assertion that she filters a significant subset of the comments which criticize Vox Day and Vox Popoli. So I posted this deleted comment from philip—a comment which supported one or more of my criticisms about Vox Day and Vox Popoli—as my first example:

Before the brouhaha between cl and Spacebunny escalated to where cl resigned as judge in the debate I made 2 short posts, one simply affirming agreement with some of cl’s comments and another in response to taylor saying that “cl had insulted everyone on this blog” where I said that was not true in that I wasn’t insulted. I posted those under “philip.” I was fully prepared to be lambasted, ridiculed, cursed or mocked, but I was totally flummoxed to find that they had been just simply EXPUNGED–no 1st warning, no 2nd warning, no reason, no nothing, just “poof.” I note cl’s post that I commented on is still there intact, as is taylor’s. I’ll await your response before I go with what I think is the explanation.

Spacebunny deleted it within seconds! You can probably keep waiting, philip, because something tells me Vox Day would never admit that his wife fights his battles for him. What man would?

In what will surely be joyous news to many at VoxWorld, I officially resign my role of honorary judge in the PZ Myers Memorial Debate [with a caveat I'll explain at the end of the post].

There are several reasons for this announcement. One is because a contestant—internet “superintelligence” Vox Day—went ahead and instantiated his own scoring system midway through the debate without so much as even mentioning it to any of the judges. Some commenters continue to misunderstand my complaint as one over math, despite several attempts to make crystal-clear that it is not. I understand that awarding each contestant a “.5″ score on behalf of my draw does not skew the debate one way or the other, mathematically. That’s not my complaint. As I said to Vox before his better half began to delete my comments, what if one or more judges disagree that Dominic’s arguments in Round Two merit the same amount of points as Vox’s arguments in Round One? I can’t speak for the others, but I certainly don’t think Dominic’s “first explanations are usually wrong” argument deserves the same score as Vox’s “plethora of testimonial evidence” argument. Oh well, what do I know? I’m just a whiner, a narcissist, a fag, a retard, an idiot, a cunt, a girl, and all sorts of other not-so-Christian things according to the upstanding “Christians” at VoxWorld.

Now, Vox Day’s overcontrolling wife—Spacebunny Day, the trigger-happy overlord of VoxWorld depicted in the satire above—has attempted to force my compliance to her ultimatum: she has actually replaced one of my comments with her own, as you can see here:

Really? Really?

See the Dishonest Atheist thread, 9/11/11 9:15pm. In the interest of avoiding unproductive back-and-forth with the irrational and emotional women who comment there, I promised that I would not respond to Spacebunny or her pal Taylor on that blog anymore. Of course, that didn’t stop either one of them from continuing their mean-spirited assault on everything and anything they could possibly imagine. He’s lived in San Francisco, he must be a “liberal fag!”  So logical, and so Christian, isn’t it? It’d be hilarious if the rest of the world weren’t judging Christians on their “fruit.”

Now, the overlord is attempting to force me to reneg on my word or forego the “privilege” of commenting at VoxWorld! Ha! You’ve got to be kidding! I spit with irreverence on Spacebunny’s attempt to control me, and I shake the dust. Jesus Christ never sought to control anyone. He simply spoke His mind and left it at that. If there’s one thing I find repulsive, it’s censorship and moderation, both of which I take as signs of weakness and control issues. As you can see, Spacebunny claims her bossiness is justified because I “insert myself into the debate,” yet, as with every other claim I’ve seen her make at VoxWorld, she fails to provide a single scintilla of evidence. Of course, nobody calls her on it, after all, she’s Vox’s wife and she holds a constant itchy finger on the censorship button. I’m sure hardly any of the “Dread Ilk” want to incur her wrath, else they might lose their “privileges,” too.

So I ask my readers: did any of you get the impression that I entered into the debate as opposed to judging it? Is providing a detailed justification for one’s judgment the same as entering the debate? Did alexamenos “enter into the debate” for doing the same damned thing? Scott Scheule? I don’t think so. If anybody else sees something I’ve overlooked, by all means, speak up.

Now that I’ve been effectively banned from commenting at VoxWorld—what does that make it, ten blogs I’ve been banned from now?—I’ll have to field some of the remaining comments here:

Daniel,

The only potential quibble (and it is a senseless one) anyone could have would be that the score should be 4 judgments in favor of gods to 1 against gods, with draws not scoring.

Sure, if you want to simply assume Vox’s Round One arguments deserve the same score as Dominic’s Round Two arguments, but I don’t share that assumption. I think that if a scoring system was desired, it should have been discussed and fine-tuned with the judges before the debate commenced, not instantiated midway through by one of the contestants, where conflict of interest is undeniably present. I told this to Vox from the very beginning.

You are blazingly, glaringly, unequivocably in the wrong on the issue of the score, or of the host’s right and obligation to share it with the audience.

I disagree, and counter that you are blazingly, glaringly, unequivocably in the wrong on the issue of when and how a scoring system should be instantiated, and by whom.

It’s cl’s seemingly random objections to basic things like the current score (which is mathematically indisputable, and not something Vox formulated, in any way, out of thin air) of the debate that seem to be at the heart of any real contention.

Not at all. If you want to know the real source of contention, read my comments a bit more carefully. I’ve spelled it out clearly both here and there. Let’s talk.

Spacebunny,

… you were asked a direct question dear – by me no less, answer it or don’t comment….

Who-hoo! Yes ma’am, I cower under the authority you seem to love lording over others as the Romans did to the Jews! What was I ever thinking to ignore you? My goodness, it’s as if I actually believe I’m accountable to God and not some woman who thinks she’s something! My bad.

why do you keep trying to enter the debate instead of just judging it?

…and now a few questions for you:

1) Is whining about perceived whining somehow not whining?

2) Is offering detailed justifications for one’s judgment the same as “entering into the debate?”

3) Is it Christian to selectively enforce the rules at VoxWorld?

4) Is it Christian to call others names like “retard,” “bitch”, “fag”, and “girl?”

5) Isn’t it ironic for a girl to insult another person by calling them a girl?

Taylor,

…the little bitch, who has insulted everyone on this blog, gets on his high horse and slams all the bad Christians for using naughty words against him.

Your claim that I’ve insulted everyone on the blog is false. I’ve responded harshly to a few people, but I’ve abstained from name-calling with the exception of “trolly Nate” which was uttered more in jest than anything else. Can you say the same? Here is your very first comment to me, which directly violated Rule #5 at VoxWorld:

Apparently, you think this atheist vs Christian thing is some kind of polite word game, a let’s agree to disagree situation. It’s a f*cking war, and you’re concerned about being fair to the enemy. Fairness, magnanimity, patience, kindness only makes it easier for him to destroy you. You appear to be the tepid sort that God immediately spits out. I can certainly see how some atheists would think highly of you. cl, you’re a chump.

Rule #5 says, “You are expected to be polite to your fellow commenters, especially if you don’t know them.” You then proceeded to unleash a barrage that included the following “Christlike” statements:

You’re a hypocrite as well as a pussy [...] I wasn’t even addressing you, asshole. I wasn’t addressing anyone, just stating my position. That you find it mean-spirited or whatever is not my problem. Seriously, go f*ck yourself to death, you yammering fraud [...] You really are a stupid bitch and a fraud. Get over yourself, idiot.

Ah, yes… that’s the way to shine the light of Jesus Christ! So, do you speak like that to the other people at Bible study? Just curious.

Boetain,

Vox’s scoring method is flawed and should be discarded. With his method, at the end of the debate (3 rounds?) You could have a guy ahead on two judge’s cards and still lose by points. For example:
Judge 1: vd,vd,vd
Judge 2: vd,ds,ds
Judge 3: vd,ds,ds

Yes, exactly. I can’t tell you how happy I am that at least one person seems to get it. Call me clueless to your heart’s content, at least we can agree on this! Although, something tells me you won’t get called everything from “bitch” to “girl” to “faggot” for your dissent. Here’s the thing: using Vox’s scoring method, Vox is guaranteed to win unless all three judges vote for Dominic in Round Three. In that case, we’d have a 4.5 tie, which would require a tiebreaking round—else we end up with precisely the state of affairs Vox’s “Dread Ilk” wished to avoid in the first place, a draw on the whole debate—and all because Vox failed to recognize his proper role in the debate. Suspicious? Me too.

Vox,

You’re ridiculous, CL. You’re a whiner, a crier, and you’re not very intelligent. You clearly didn’t understand the obvious because you asked “So you’re awarding “1.5 points” for each positive judgment?”

Of course! After all, it just can’t be that I thought somebody as superintelligent as Vox Day would see the obvious flaws with his scoring system! You see, charity is the difference, Vox. Since you claim to be superintelligent, I assumed you were easily intelligent enough to see the problems. I didn’t think for a second that you would be so unintelligent as to award points for failed arguments, which left “1.5 points for each round” as the only plausible alternative.  In the end, I guess there’s a risk with both charity and assuming everybody else is another stupid member of the ignorant masses, or a lying snake! Ah, if only I could be a member of MENSA. If only!

Because you’re not smart enough. And the idea of you accusing me of trying to act like a judge when everyone has seen you referring to your own arguments is simply absurd.

Oh, look, another exaggerated rhetorical claim from the bastion of accuracy! So, “everyone” has seen me referring to my own arguments as judge? Evidence, please? Can’t make your case logically, or without insult? No matter! Just call names and accuse others of being unintelligent! As if we haven’t seen that strategy exhausted ad nauseum at VoxWorld. Get real, buddy… get real.

If the judges wish to decide on that, they can certainly do so. But I’ve never seen any debate where the judges – or rather, a judge – has tried to stick himself into the center of the discussion like you have.

Oh come on. Now you sound like your crying wife. In fact, are you both the same person? Is it a “good cop, bad cop” show you’re running behind the scenes over there? She’s McGavin and you’re Hodges, ala “Colors”? Criticizing you for instantiating your own flawed scoring system midway through the debate without so much as even asking the judges does not entail that I’ve “stuck myself into the center of the discussion,” if that’s what you mean. Think rationally. Don’t just parrot your wife.

If I may flip this for a second, I’ve never seen any debate where one of the contestants sprung there own scoring system in the middle of Round Two without consulting the judges. Like I asked, are you a contestant, or a judge? That’s right. You’re a contestant. Let the judges keep score and judge as they see fit, lest you rightfully incur suspicion related to conflict of interest.

No one said points were awarded for failed arguments, the partial points were awarded for a draw… Are you such a blithering idiot that you genuinely think a team that ties loses three games and ties one is equal to a team that loses four games? You awarded a draw. That’s half points for both, dimwit.

Correct, Vox, you awarded partial points for a draw. Now, why did I pronounce Round Two a draw? Failed arguments. That’s right, say it again: failed arguments. Then, connect the dots: you awarded yourselves points for failed arguments. IOW, contrary to what you just claimed, points were awarded for failed arguments. Not that it matters, as that’s not even my chief gripe—at least you awarded points for failed arguments equally—I just wanted to point out how often you fail to see the obvious, despite your loud protestations that such errors are reserved for the “ignorant masses.” Next time, follow the chain of logic instead of denigrating and insulting those you see as less intelligent than your superintelligent self.

In Conclusion

I’ve washed my hands and my soul of this poisonous chimera. Now, for the caveat.

I deeply respect the patience and effort that Scott Scheule and alexamenos have put into judging this debate. If Vox recants his scoring system, I will resume my role as judge. Alternatively, if Vox refuses to recant his scoring system, and both judges award Round Three to Dominic, I will judge Round Three anyways. I’m doing this for no other reason than respect for my fellow judges, so we can at least have some semblance of consistency and impartiality, lest all our time be wasted and this debate shown for the pyrrhic victory Vox Day appears interested in making it. If either of them award Round Three to Vox, and Vox doesn’t recant his scoring system, it’s over. I don’t even need to chime in. Vox did the scoring for us.

Way to go Vox! It’s easy to win when you’re both contestant and judge!

Opening Argument Summary

Vox’s argument can be summarized as, “E/L->gods because I can’t think of any better way to explain alleged moral consistency.”

Dominic’s argument can be summarized as, “E/L->no gods because first attempts at explanation are almost always incorrect.”

Extended Commentary: Vox’s Argument

In a move that can only be described as a strategic blunder, Vox spent 500+ words—over 15% of his total argument—trying to justify this loosely-defined “gods” concept as the subject of the debate, as if he hadn’t already covered this ad nauseum in the comment threads. Interestingly, even though Dominic admitted to “the mistake of overlooking the topic of the debate,” Vox reminds the less intelligent, “The atheist position that Dominic is championing is not defined as disbelief in the existence of the Christian God, but as disbelief in the existence of all gods. To his credit, Dominic understands and accepts this, and everyone would do well to follow his example.” For Pete’s sake Vox, we get it already. This would be much more enjoyable were it not so obvious that Vox thinks practically everybody besides himself is a complete moron worthy of talking down to.

When Vox gets around to debating, he wisely opts to strengthen his argument from moral evil, which I criticized as “fancy poetic metaphor” the first time around. Unfortunately, he doesn’t give the argument the support it needs. Specifically, Vox attempts to prove A) that the existence of evil requires the presence of a source of good, and B) that the only entity capable of dictating an objective and definitive good is the Creator or His agent. He proved neither, and honestly, aside from his comments about pedophiles, I found his argument bloated, boring, and non-sequitur, filled with naked assertions to boot. Reference to an “internal brake” doesn’t prove anything. The failure of psychoanalysis doesn’t prove anything. Repeated allusion to the “failures of the materialist consensus” doesn’t prove anything. Vox simply asserts a “relatively small range of variations in moral sensibilities,” but a semi-educated person must wonder what planet he’s referring to. IMHO, the variations throughout history cannot be called anything but gaping. People used to toss others to lions for entertainment. Slavery used to be a-okay. Even the Israelites used to stone people for things we teach in elementary school. Need I go on? Hell, Vox himself seems to think that the “Law” is arbitrary. Even if we granted Vox’s claim—which we ought not—moral consistency doesn’t prove an external Law or a Lawgiver. Moral consistency is just as consistent with common evolutionary and biological underpinnings, as Dominic noted in Round One.

Returning to the creative writer within, Vox writes, “The Law can only be broken if the Law exists. Evil can only exist in the presence of the Good.” Spare me! This is the same poetic nonsense I rejected the first time around. People exist. They do things. There are some things most people like. There are other things most people dislike. None of this proves any sort of “law” or “evil” or “good” or “lawgiver.” Since this is the only argument Vox offers in this round, I have no choice but to conclude that he has not advanced his case.

Extended Commentary: Dominic’s Argument

Dominic attempts to falsify Vox’s claim that it is ahistorical and unscientific to dismiss the plethora of testimonial evidence for gods, but his attempt strikes me as hair-splitting hypocrisy: “The true statement would be that it is ahistorical to dismiss all testimonial evidence out of hand.” Dominic tries this “out of hand” distinction thinking it saves him, yet, astonishingly, he uses “cultural influence” as a reason to dismiss the testimonial evidence for gods out of hand! No longer does one need to evaluate case-by-case as Vox correctly suggested in Round One, Dominic can just dimiss it all categorically because of “cultural influence.” The support? “…show me someone who is possessed by a demon that spits on both the cross and the name of Christ who has never heard of Christianity or been exposed to anything Christian. Show me someone recounting an experience of being sexually molested by little grey aliens with big heads and huge hypnotic eyes who’d never heard of or been exposed to Hollywood films or other popular culture sources that tell us what aliens do and what they look like. There has been no such showing yet.” Pure chutzpah. Dominic should have done the research. If he or anyone else wishes to accuse me of unduly swift dismissal, we can have it out in the comments. I will supply what Dominic claims has not been shown.

Along similar lines, Dominic writes, “[testimonies of alien abduction are] a class of testimony that is equivalent to and practically indistinguishable from testimony of interactions with gods, as opposed to testimony of interactions with the mundane.” Dominic still doesn’t seem to understand that alien abduction testimonies are indistinguishable from testimonies of interactions with gods because they are testimonies of interactions with gods, according to the loose definition of “gods” supplied. Trying to draw this line of distinction is a failed endeavor. Further, to claim the two classes of testimony are “indistinguishable” is to completely undermine Dominic’s conclusion that “Gods are not real because the true reason for the eyewitness testimony that they are based on is something else entirely.” If he can’t distinguish between the testimonies of gods and aliens—as Dominic undeniably admitted—on what grounds does he distinguish enough to claim that testimonies of gods are based on something else entirely? This just isn’t adding up. Dominic didn’t show A3 false, and actually committed the error he sought to establish.

In response to Vox’s analogy from Round One, Dominic writes, “That it would have been silly for a hypothetical group of Aztecs to deny the existence of hostile Spainards before ever meeting a white man is intentional obfuscation, because Vox’s own argument is entirely dependent on the idea that the gods have in fact been met.” Good point, but to say Vox is “intentionally obfuscating” is presumptuous. Dominic doesn’t know that. After all, it remains possible that despite his MENSA membership, the “internet superintelligence” might have simply missed the obvious. After all, truth is stranger than fiction, right Dominic?

Turning towards Vox’s argument from moral evil, Dominic claims that Vox dashes his own argument to pieces by stating both:

…[the moral sense] is something that is simultaneously internal to the consciousness and outside the desires and the awareness of consequences,

…and,

It could also be a pre-programmed implant, in which case we would speak of the implanter rather than the transmitter.

Dominic creates the impression that these two statements are mutually exclusive. They are not. “Internal to the consciousness” doesn’t mean “generated / sustained / informed entirely from within.” It seems Dominic was too swift in his dismissal there. He did not show B3 false.

As for B4, whether or not man’s moral sense has changed much over time unfortunately depends on an arbitrary idea of what “changed much over time” means. As we’ve briefly explored, history shows a significant moral trajectory. On the other hand, some things have remained fairly constant, e.g., our concept of a “good” person is one who abstains from the seven deadly sins. Dominic uses vengeance to argue that our moral sense reverses polarity even in the here and now, but he overlooks the reason the death penalty is not murder. Murder is the taking of an innocent life. A true reversal would be Joe murdering an innocent person, then demanding justice when somebody else murders his wife. Even then, that wouldn’t necessarily prove a reversal. Joe may have had the “internal brake” present when murdering. Additionally, one might say the universal recognition of and desire for justice is a powerful argument in Vox’s favor: people have historically shown an unshakeable belief that the world should be—or at least could be—just. That’s beside the point. Vox didn’t show B4 true, but Dominic didn’t show it false.

Turning to his argument for the non-existence of gods, Dominic attempts to clarify and strengthen his “truth is stranger than fiction” argument. He appeals to phlogiston, ether, and geocentrism as examples proving the hypothesis that, ”For any new experience or phenomenon, when man attempts to explain the phenomenon using the tools for understanding at his disposal, the first attempt at explanation is almost invariably wrong.” I grant that this seems intuitively true. After all, Darwinian gradualism was wrong much to the dismay of twentieth-century atheists, but what of Lyell, Kepler, Einstein, Hubble, and the Herschels, to name a few? Each of these individuals made first attempts that appear correct. It seems easy to offer examples that challenge his hypothesis, which makes one suspect Dominic is simply cherrypicking his way to the goal line. Regardless, Dominic doesn’t give any analysis to prove his point. How many “first explanations” have been correct? How many have been incorrect? He needs to give us a reason to believe that “the first attempt at explanation is almost invariably wrong.” That some first attempts have been wrong doesn’t entail that they are almost invariably wrong. Additionally, even if we grant his hypothesis, that almost all first attempts are invariably wrong doesn’t entail that any particular first attempt is necessarily wrong.

More importantly, “first explanations are usually wrong” only carries weight against explanations, which are distinct from experiences and observations, which are the prime constituents of testimonial evidence. The “plethora of evidence” Vox alludes to is mostly—perhaps even entirely—based on experiences and observations. With the exception of philosophers, the “plethora of evidence” wasn’t people saying to themselves, “Gee, I wonder what created the world, oh it must be this thing called God.” Rather, these were people going about their business then suddenly T-boned by the “supernatural” and miraculous. Granted, these things were explained as “gods,” but if gods are superhuman beings with control over nature, it doesn’t take much explanation to verify an instance. In contrast to celestial quandaries where definitive answers often elude, superhuman beings have either appeared and controlled nature, or not. No imagination is necessary. No explanation is required to observe this phenomenon, therefore it doesn’t seem vulnerable to the “first attempts at an explanation are almost invariably wrong” objection.

Dominic writes, “The response received so far to this argument has been a dismissive wave of obvious to Dominic does not make it true. The counter examples being perfectly mundane references to Starbucks and Internet porn. No imagination is necessary to postulate the existence of either, and the retort so far has been remarkably asinine. There is no need to rely on extrapolation to paint a complete picture when acertaining either Starbucks or Jenna Jameson is real.” That’s not entirely fair, as his claim has evolved a bit. The first time around, he said he finds “simple claims too convenient,” and although Vox’s rebuttal missed the mark, mine did not [murder convictions sustained by straightforward forensic evidence; Ockham's razor]. So there was more than a “dismissive wave” behind the rejection of his first claim, and there is more than a “dismissive wave” behind the rejection of its descendant: myopic focus on incorrect first attempts doesn’t demonstrate the hypothesis, which itself is not germane to testimonial evidence.

In Conclusion

Vox did not persuasively demonstrate his argument from moral evil. Dominic failed to show A3 and B3 false. B4 seems irrevocably tied to subjectivity hence still up for grabs. Dominic did not persuasively demonstrate his hypothesis that the first attempt at an explanation is almost invariably correct, nor did he attempt to account for the fact that testimony is distinct from explanation. I declare this round a draw.

This debate concerns the evidence [E] and logic [L] for the existence or nonexistence of “gods,” which are unfortunately defined loosely as, “superhuman beings worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes.” I’m disappointed that these guys didn’t nail down a specific God concept. By the current definition, ET’s, the traditional monotheist God and superintelligent AI are all fair game for “gods.” I consider it a waste of time to be discussing the mathematical probabilities for ET’s and other such distractions. Hell, why not Criss Angel? This debate should be about God, not some loosely-defined concept of “gods” that may or may not include Terminators and other carbon-based oddities produced by the very theory Vox dedicates so much energy to denigrating elsewhere. Oh well. I signed up for this sideshow, and I can’t back out of it now. For the record, I wrote this before reading the other judges’ pieces, or any of the commentary over at VoxWorld. I also rushed a little bit, but, real life takes priority.

Dominic argues that E/L ->no gods. Vox argues that E/L->gods. I’ll offer my summaries, followed by extended criticism. Bracketed strings indicated spelling corrections and paraphrases in the interest of brevity. By all means, please assume I’m a lying, deceitful snake, because if you don’t, you won’t fact-check to make sure I’ve accurately represented the arguments. Oh wait—that only applies to atheists! LOL!

Opening Argument Summary

It’s been said that a screenplay is underdeveloped if it cannot be distilled to a single sentence. I think the same is true of any good story or argument.

Hence, Dominic’s opening arguments can be summarized as, “E/L->no gods because a rogue study, deja vu and precognition provide sufficient grounds for rejecting the vast body of E/L suggesting that cause always precedes effect, and this undermines Prime Mover arguments, which I find too convenient and simple.”

Vox’s opening arguments can be summarized as, “E/L->gods because mathematical probability supports the notion, we have a plethora of E/L that no skeptic can summarily dismiss without committing egregious special pleading, and shadows require light.”

Extended Commentary: Dominic’s Opening Arguments

In the first half of his opening argument, Dominic expresses incredulity concerning the various “Prime Mover” arguments which he incorrectly lumps together as “all basically the same.” Seemingly sensing the strength of classic cosmological arguments, Dominic argues that, “the existence of the supernatural is necessary only by taking it as axiomatically true that cause [precedes] effect, and therefore space-time is causal and linear.” As Dominic himself concedes, “the majority of our experience confirms [that cause necessarily precedes effect] as self-evidently true, from daily living down to events only quantum physics can describe.” Given such a tacit concession, one would expect Dominic to give very strong reasons for overturning cross-disciplinary empirical consensus. He attempts to do so with a Matlockian appeal to four exhibits: Daryl Bem’s paper Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect, my post from 2009 titled A Precognitive Reality, the phenomenon of deja vu, and veridical dreaming. Dominic concludes, “Each exhibit presented here is [evidentiary] support to dissuade one from automatically accepting that either cause necessarily [precedes] effect or that time is linear in the strict sense, upon which the cosmological argument and the necessity of gods rests. Time is usually linear and cause almost always [precedes] effect, but not necessarily…”

LOL!

Dominic’s arguments fail for the following reasons:

1. In startling disrespect for scientific consensus and who-knows-how-many years of human observation, Dominic suggests that a rogue study, one which he admits lacks “rigorous replication,” is sufficient to overthrow the painstakingly-arrived-at conclusions of physics and everyday life. Big no-no. Even if it could be demonstrably proven that causality is not always linear, Dominic’s concession that causality is “almost always linear” is sufficient to leave the theist an out that is far more likely than not. After all, it only takes a single instance of linear causality to get a universe going, and if causality is “almost always” linear, then it’s “almost always” the case that any given causal sequence was linear. Promissory alinear causality is not sufficient grounds to doubt Prime Mover logic or the existence of the supernatural. Dominic would have to provide further argumentation demonstrating why this promissory alinear causality should trump Prime Mover logic, which seems to rest only the assumption that the initial causal sequence was linear [if anybody knows of Prime Mover logic which doesn't require linear causality, speak up]. Dominic also seems to overlook the fact that a theist could use Bem’s paper in support of traditional theistic predestination and/or spiritual revelation. In short, Exhibit A is fraught with problems. Sans emendations, it deserves to be discarded.

2. That I had a precognitive experience amounts to little more than a hill of beans and doesn’t absolve Dominic’s argument of any of the problems mentioned above. Exhibit B is simply one of many anecdotes, none of which force the conclusion that time is not always linear. Exhibit B is also consistent with theistic predestination and/or spiritual revelation, and Dominic gives no reason to suppose that we ought to doubt linear causality on behalf of Exhibit B. To the round file it goes.

3. The most we can say with certainty is that deja vu is a subjective feeling of disorientation, hardly a phenomenon that favors alinear causality over, say, strictly materialist, spiritual or “parallel universe” conceptions of consciousness. Dominic asks, “If time was completely linear in all circumstances, then how is it that people can have two experiences of the same event bump into each other enough to disorient them?” Eh, I don’t know, but an unanswered question can hardly be sufficient to overthrow the painstakingly-arrived-at consensus of physics and everyday life. Pondering the plausibility of deja vu arising from purely materialistic means, Dominic digs his own grave: “While one explanation could be the processing delays in the brain that occur between a literal sensation and the [conscious] awareness of said event, such that at least two copies of the same sensory stimuli drift through the brain, this is, at best, idle speculation.” Unfortunately, the insinuation that deja vu *might* indicate alinear causality is also idle speculation. Six feet under, Exhibit C goes.

4. Exhibit D was basically a rehash of Exhibit B, and I grant Dominic that veridical dreaming and precognitive experiences have been provisionally demonstrated. Again, though, this bit of evidence simply isn’t strong enough to meet the objections raised in 1. Dominic needs to prove much more than “causality might not always be linear” to make his case.

In short, all four supporting arguments are laughable.

Dominic begins the second half of his opening argument by alleging that, “…the cosmological argument itself is an attempt to eliminate the problem of inifinite regress that suffers from inifinite regress.” Since an eternally existent Prime Mover undeniably solves the problem of infinite regress, I was expecting something spectacular in support of this assertion. Dominic didn’t fail to disappoint. Here is his treatment of the issue, in full:

Now, rather than thinking I’m resorting to the “Then what created God? Ha, gotcha!” nonsense, it’s better to look at the original structure of the argument first put forth, since the summary version that most people are familiar with is vague enough to define God as an unstable particle. God is more than just a source of energy, since the observation is that everything that has a direction was pushed that way, yet an immediately observable exception to this is the phenomenon of conscious intent as a source of motion. A body, (literally, a human body) can be completely at rest, yet spurred to motion through conscious effort. This led to the concusion that God, being defined as the unmoved mover, is by necessity a conscious entity who chose to create the universe, since thought itself is the most readily observable phenomenon that bridges the gap between the purely abstract and the material. And the purest thought, then, would be thinking about thinking, the first act that led to the creation of the universe and needs no material source to give it a push. This, however, does not alleviate the problem of infinite regression that was sought to be solved, as it only addresses infinite regress of particle motion. This first thought, the one about thinking… Thinking about what, more thinking? Infinite regress. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

IMHO, Dominic failed to demonstrate that any given cosmological argument fails to solve the problem of infinite regress. His argument is not refined enough to sustain his claim. Aristotle stands.

Dominic’s closing assertion is simply that he finds the statement “truth is stranger than fiction” persuasive. Big whoop. Dominic then claims that he finds gods “too convenient” of an explanation, using geocentrism and quantum physics as examples of “simple explanation[s] that turned out to be quite wrong.” Again, big whoop. What about all the simple explanations that turned out to be quite right, for example the vast majority of murder convictions sustained by forensic evidence? Dominic gives no reliable criteria by which one might differentiate a true simple claim from a false simple claim. That Dominic finds gods “too convenient” is an indication only of Dominic’s subjective preference and has no bearing on the veracity of God or gods. Dominic’s approach also seems to disregard the general principle that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity. IOW, Ockham’s Razor actually favors the “simplest” explanation, provided that explanation can account for the pertinent evidence. I find it odd that Dominic would seemingly throw Ockham’s Razor to the wind, but, whatever.

Extended Commentary: Vox’s Opening Arguments

Vox begins by supplying clear definitions for the terms evidence and logic. He then alludes to “a vast quantity of extant documentary and testimonial evidence providing indications that gods exist,” while remaining honest enough to concede that “the quality of this evidence varies considerably.” Alluding to cases of confirmed fraud in published scientific papers as a corollary example, Vox argues that the skeptic cannot summarily dismiss the entire body of evidence: “…at least some science is not fraudulent. Therefore, if one is willing to accept the validity of published scientific papers that one has not been able to verify are not fraudulent, one must similarly accept the validity of documentary evidence for the existence of gods that one has not examined and determined to merit dismissal for one reason or another.” This strikes me as cogent and fair, and a great way to force accountability and consistency on the skeptic.

Vox makes quite a few claims without any citation to support them, but this is more a minor annoyance than a major problem. For example, Vox tells us, “Since eyewitness testimony has been variously determined to be somewhere between 12 percent and 50 percent inaccurate, this means that between 50 percent and 88 percent of the testimonial evidence for gods should be assumed accurate, at least concerning the correctly reported details of the divine encounter.” Of course, lack of citation aside, the underlying logic is airtight, and Vox is again fair enough to concede, “The correct interpretations of the specific details, of course, are a different matter.” So far, so good.

Shifting gears, Vox writes, “Science itself lends support to the idea of the material existence of gods in this universe when astronomical evidence taken into account. According to the latest scientific consensuses, the universe is 13.75 billion years old, the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, and homo sapiens sapiens reached behavioral modernity 50,000 years ago. As there are a conservatively estimated 200 billion stars in the galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the universe, this indicates that there has been sufficient time for at least 7,891 billion alien races to appear, evolve, and reach a higher level of technological development than [man] given the current ratio of 1.18 planets discovered per star.” Unfortunately, we have no way to easily fact-check this, and Vox doesn’t supply any calculations. For all we know he might be pulling this out of his ass. Further, it seems odd for Vox to appeal to evolutionary probability here, as the string “sufficient time” clearly suggests. Again: are we counting “advanced, evolved beings” as gods? Is a highly revered, weather-controlling computer a “god” in this discussion? As I said in my opening paragraph, I’m not interested in debating the existence ET’s and Terminators. I think it is fair to assume the average person doesn’t mean “advanced, evolved beings” when they say “God” or “gods,” although, to his credit, Vox makes a distinction between “Creator Gods” and “gods” during his argument from moral evil. So, on we go.

Turning to the concept of moral evil, Vox writes, “I am not aware of a single individual who has denied ever experiencing any direct contact with evil. And by evil, I do not mean mere bad fortune, physical pain, or the application of the various principles of physics to suboptimal human action, but rather those self-aware, purposeful, and malicious forces which intend material harm and suffering to others and are capable of inflicting it.” Pure bluster. I know countless individuals who firmly deny that self-aware, evil forces exist. While I agree with Vox that “human evil is partly endogenous,” it’s a Saltarellian leap to go from there to God or gods. After all, many people disbelieve in “self-aware forces of evil,” most notably those people who believe “evil” is just a handy euphemism for desire-thwarting human behaviors like stealing, lying, murder, etc. Not a chance, Vox, not a chance. Your argument from moral evil requires emendations. Burn the dross and resubmit.

Still belaboring the point, Vox’s closing paragraph begins, “As a shadow requires the presence of a source of light in order to exist, evil requires the presence of a source of good.” LOL! Spare me. This is just fancy poetic metaphor designed to objectify what may in fact be purely subjective phenomena. It might be appropriate in one of Vox’s “cheesy sci-fi novels” [PZ's words, not mine], but it is entirely inappropriate in an ostensibly serious debate. He needs to flesh this out quite a bit if he’s trying to make the WLC-esque claim that objective good exists, ergo one or more Creator Gods.

Extended Commentary: Dominic’s Response

The first half of Dominic’s response to Vox could be summarized as, “gods don’t exist, ET’s almost certainly do.” Disappointed? So was I.

In response to Vox’s “plethora of evidence” claim, Dominic rightly concedes that, “…no amount of handwaving theorizing that so many people throughout history have been merely dishonest, crazy, delusional, or suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy can stand up against the sheer volume of accounts made, so dismissal simply is not an option.” Damn straight, and I’m impressed Dominic didn’t take the denialist path there. He continues, “There is no denying that there is something, possibly of a distinctly external nature, imposing itself on people throughout history causing them to report visitations from gods, angels, demons.” Whoopee! Something, possibly of a distinctly external nature, probably exists!

Wisely, Dominic concedes Vox’s plethora of evidence and spends his next few paragraphs giving us a brief history of alleged extraterrestrial visitations, reminding us that some people see greys, others angels, others demons, etc. So, Dominic clearly accepts that “something is happening,” he just denies that it has anything to do with God or gods [then again, aren't superhuman entities that can control nature "gods" by definition?]. After a bit of what basically amounts to mumbling, Dominic realizes, “Somehow, I doubt that proving other people exist, though, is the purpose of this discussion.” Exactly what I was thinking. This debate was supposed to be about God or gods, not ET’s, yet both Vox and Dominic spend at least a paragraph talking about ET’s. Oh well. Too bad we didn’t nail down a definition of “gods” or “God” like I suggested in the beginning.

Realizing the futility of arguing over ET’s, Dominic thankfully returns to the central issue, i.e., God. He then turns to Vox’s argument for moral evil, and, astonishingly for an atheist, he agrees with Vox on the existence of “objective” evil, but I think that’s only because Dominic uses objective unconventionally. He writes, “I believe we can all be in agreement that objective evil, as defined as a self-aware, purposeful, and malicious force which intends material harm and suffering to others and is capable of inflicting it, is quite real.” Really? On what grounds? I believe these forces exist, but that’s because I accept the existence of the traditional malevolent deities, i.e., Satan, demons and their offspring. What sort of “self-aware evil force” can an atheist possibly assent to?

Dominic then disagrees with Vox’s claim I dismissed as fanciful poetic metaphor, writing, “Objectively real evil is something we intuitively recognize by its qualities, and I don’t see how any of the qualities that defines evil requires a source of goodness to either enable or define it.” My thoughts exactly. As I said, Vox fails in his attempt to objectify what may in fact be purely subjective phenomena [human intuitions about "good" and "evil"]. Further, if Dominic is going to concede the existence of “self-aware forces of evil,” then, unless he means to imply that they are ET’s or Terminators, hasn’t he just conceded the existence of something like demons ala traditional Christian theology?

This is just a minor point, but Dominic writes, “Evil is always unpleasant for someone, that’s what makes it objective, but leaping to the conclusion that it couldn’t exist without the objective and definitive Good strikes me as awfully non-sequiteur, knocking the base out of the argument that our ability to recognize evil necessitates the existence of a custodian of the Good.” Mostly yes, partly no. Mostly yes, because the fact that we all dislike being stolen from doesn’t necessarily lead to God or gods, and this is an appropriate response to Vox’s argument. Partly no, because feelings of unpleasantry are always subjective in that they ultimately supervene on the mind of the subject [note that this does not negate the "mostly yes" logic]. Dominic seems to misunderstand the elementary difference between subjective and objective, as further evidenced by: “We all eat roughly the same things due to the fact we all need the same kinds of dietary input to survive due to the similiarity of our bodies (which is also why its safe so say we all see colors in roughly the same way, philosophers and their ‘what if my blue is your red?’ be damned). Sugar is sweet, 50 degree Farenheit water is cold, and someone who steals from someone else for purely personal gain is evil. The first two are readily accepted facts across the board (thus objective, the only thing subjective is “how sweet” or “how cold”) as being a consequence of our common biology, yet the third gets a free pass as a universal law that we know though our moral intuition, that would hold true even without us around. This makes no sense.” Indeed, Dominic, it doesn’t. Ever heard of Daltonism or any of the many other sense “disorders” in the literature? Farts don’t smell “bad” for everyone. Grass isn’t “green” for everyone. Mass murder isn’t “evil” for everyone. So I’m not sure what that latter bit was meant to accomplish, but it doesn’t matter because Vox didn’t make a strong enough case anyways.

Lest I be dismissed as too flippant, I agree with the meat of his claim. Dominic writes, “I’m not saying that our common biology is the definitive answer as to why we all perceive and recognize flavor, temperature, and evil, but it is just as good an explanation, if not better, than jumping to the conclusion that our recognition of evil is a window into some absolute moral law, much less saying that the very act of recognizing it requires some corresponding Goodness.” With the aforementioned minor reservations aside, I agree. Vox failed to make his case that “self-aware forces” of evil exist, much less that their existence proves the necessity of “self-aware forces” of good. Dominic concludes, “the existence of objective evil is not itself a definitive proof of a lawgiver, it could just as easily be a secondary consequence of our biological reliance on vitamin C or something equally unexpected.” Well-stated, Saltarelli. I concur.

Extended Commentary: Vox’s Response

In response to Dominic’s thoughts on cause and effect, Vox writes, “the assertion that the existence of the supernatural depends upon the axiom that cause precedes effect or that space-time is causal and linear is both incorrect and unsupported.” Yes and no. Yes, because the inference Dominic draws from the assertion remains vulnerable to the problems outlined in 1. No, because the Prime Mover arguments Dominic alludes to have typically been advanced using linear causality. So, Dominic correctly asserted that the traditional Prime Mover arguments require linear causality. There may be Prime Mover logic compatible with alinear causality, but that doesn’t seem to be what Dominic was talking about. Vox is also correct in another sense: although traditional Prime Mover logic seems to require linear causality, this does not necessarily hold for all things “supernatural” [whatever the hell that means, nobody explains]. Vox is justified in dismissing Dominic’s arguments in this regard.

WRT Dominic’s four exhibits, Vox continues, “although I find them intriguing, I have nothing to say here about the existence or non-existence of precognition, mystery butter, deja vu, or dreaming the future, because none of them are relevant to this debate given the nonexistent logical link between those four things and the existence of gods.” Well, not so fast. Dominic’s claim is that these phenomena justify doubt regarding the proposition, “cause and effect is always linear.” So, there is a link, but the connection just isn’t strong enough for all the reasons I described in 1.

Regarding Dominic’s persuasion by the axiom “truth is stranger than fiction,” Vox writes, “Nevertheless, convenience is not a serious argument against existence. 7-11 indubitably exists. Starbucks seemingly exists on every corner. Few things could possibly be considered more convenient than Internet porn, which is available 24-7 around the entire planet, and yet it too can be confirmed to exist.” Vox conveniently equivocates over Dominic’s intended usage of the word convenient. This is not the type of “convenience” Dominic is talking about, but this, too, is only a minor annoyance. Vox is correct to mention that Ockham’s Razor is “a useful rule of thumb and parsimony is usually considered to be a scientific positive when the relative likelihood of two competing theories is being compared.” Dominic failed to mention this. Vox writes, “While I can hardly question what is or is not obvious to Dominic, I can certainly point out that obviousness to Dominic is not [an] objective metric that is relevant in any way to anyone else.” Exactly. That Dominic finds gods “too convenient” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans logically.

Reiterating his previous appeal to possibility, Vox writes, “With the continued advance of technology and the concomitant changes in [man's] future understanding of the universe that will come from that advance, it is entirely possible that a belief in the material limits of the universe which rejects the supernatural may well one day look as ignorant and crazy as a belief in Newtonian physics which rejects quantum physics.” Well sure, but you need something more than “X is entirely possible and may one day be discovered” to make your case. After all, the same could be said of unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, interstellar teapots and all the other silly objects proffered by flippant atheists. Plausibility is certainly an important fact to point out, but ultimately worthless in forcing a positive conclusion for gods. Luckily for Vox, the “plethora of evidence” stands in his favor.

In Conclusion

Overlooking his neglect for citations, Vox’s arguments respected scientific methodology, consistency and consensus, whereas Dominic’s arguments showed flagrant disregard for the same. I’m not being harsh, but Dominic didn’t make a single forceful argument for the non-existence of gods. On the other hand, Vox’s argument from mathematical probability established plausibility, but that isn’t sufficient to force the conclusion that gods exist. Vox’s argument from moral evil wasn’t sufficiently developed to be relevant. The clincher? Dominic conceded the forcefulness of Vox’s “plethora of evidence” argument, which clearly tips the scale in Vox’s favor, but it gets worse for Dominic: Vox’s “plethora of evidence” is also consistent with Dominic’s “alien hypothesis,” and aliens are acceptable given the definition of “gods” we’ve been supplied. So, unexpectedly, both Vox and Dominic seem to have agreed that E/L->gods! Since Dominic was supposed to argue that E/L->no gods, it seems he didn’t make his case and actually conceded Vox’s. Since our loosely-defined concept of “gods” allows for any superhuman being worshipped as able to control nature, I don’t see how Dominic could successfully argue that E/L->no gods, unless of course he attributes Vox’s “plethora of evidence” to an uncannily teleological “Northern lights” -type phenomena. Or mass delusion, but both these guys are levels above John Loftus.

I reluctantly declare Vox Day the winner of round one, but not by much. In fact, it’s almost by default.

Addendum

As this debate proceeds, I’d like to see a narrower focus on the traditional God concept. The definition of “gods” as any “superhuman being worshipped as able to control nature” is simply too wide a goalpost, one that diminishes this debate’s relevance to traditional (a)theist dialog.

Who is Vox Day? He’s a recipient of wingnut welfare, a pretentious nobody who had a rich and rotten crook for a father and who writes cheesy fantasy novels in between penning cheesy political discourse.

Now that’s weird. Does anybody remember what PZ said when J.J. Ramsey insulted his daughter before being censored into Darwinian oblivion?

If you must insult my family, do it to their faces so they can kick your ass; it’s cowardly to try and do it in front of me.

Oh really now? Looks like the butterfly collector could use a little brushing up on his fallacies, eh? Why dost PZ plead specially? Now that PZ wimped out, Vox needs an atheist with a brain and some courage to debate! I believe that former TWIM regular Dominic Saltarelli has agreed to debate Vox, but that has yet to be confirmed. If anybody ’round these parts wants to take the challenge, contact Vox. Personally, I’d recommend Peter Hurford for the atheist side. Or dguller, but I don’t think he reads here anymore. However, and here’s the interesting part, somebody nominated yours truly as a possible judge for the debate [HT: Quixote]. A commenter going by Mr. Nightstick wrote:

Have you guys seen this guy? He is on par with Vox in his dismantling of atheism. He would be great for the theist judge.

Well. That was nice. I noticed something else this commenter wrote in another of Vox’s threads:

Found your website the other day through CSA. Excellent work! I think you and Vox should go on a comedy tour. Watching people go through convulsions when you and him destroy their worlds is very enjoyable.

Much obliged, Mr. Nightstick, much obliged. Although, I’m not out to destroy worlds, I just call it like I see it for whatever it’s worth. People tend to either hate me or love me when it comes to my dealings on atheist blogs. Oh well. It’s better than being boring I guess! At any rate, I emailed Vox and told him I was interested, so we’ll see where it goes.

Asteroids are perhaps my penultimate example. “Huge, flying rocks in space? That’s absurd!” the uber-rationalist pompously declared to the free-thinker of centuries past. “It’s more likely that you were just hallucinating when that little rock fell out of the sky and cut your head, and as far as that huge, round hole in the ground, you’re probably just seeing a pattern where none really exists.”

“Well…” the free-thinker replies with noticeable annoyance, perhaps at the subjective use of ostensibly mathematical terms. “I maintain that my position is rationally held. I saw what I saw and in my opinion, the only thing wrong with that huge, round hole in the ground is that it’s not big enough for you to bury your head.”

Despite it’s usefulness in making predictions and identifying false propositions, science necessarily plays catch-up with reality. If you are an uber-rationalist, you might want to remember this the next time you’re tempted to look down on others as “less rational” than thou.

** Existence debatable. An uber-rationalist can doubt anything.

11. A Review of Near-Death Experiences Michael Schroter-Kunhardt [PDF 324KB] This paper is a fairly comprehensive overview of NDE studies and their findings. The author notes that NDE / OBE experiences are ubiquitous throughout culture and time, citing their existence in the Gilgamesh epic, 5th century Christian church reports, and 7th century Amida-Buddhist accounts. Various skeptical objections are responded to, with citations. Support is offered for the claim that sociological, demographic and psychological variables do not influence NDE. NDE are experienced by the very young and the very old. The author cites four studies in which patients apparently experienced NDE under isoelectric EEG, and even in the morgue after resuscitation efforts had been abandoned. The author makes an important point that I’ve alluded to before: via the problem of other minds, cessation of consciousness cannot be experienced or verified. It can only be assumed given various materialist presuppositions. The author makes another important point that tends to fall by the wayside in the NDE debate: “…all meaningful human behavior is associated with the temporolimbic region of the brain… the implicit statement of nearly all religious experiences to represent the reality of another world cannot be falsified by neurophysiological correlates.” Regardless of one’s inclinations on the matter, this is an excellent summary that cites over 160 scholarly papers and articles which would serve those interested in further research.

12. Quantum Interactive Dualism: The Libet and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Causal Anomalies Henry Stapp [PDF 216KB] Materialists strike me as out of step with modern science, and the author echoes those suspicions: “In spite of this seemingly relevant twentieth century development in physics, contemporary neuroscience and philosophy of mind continue to base their quests to understand consciousness on an essentially nineteenth century conceptualization of the human brain, ignoring the facts that the older conception of reality has been known to be false for almost a century, and that, in stark contrast to the nineteenth century conceptualization, contemporary orthodox physics has specified dynamical connections between brains and minds built intrinsically into it. …the quantum ontological model is a viable (i.e., not yet disproven) and logically coherent conception of the way that Nature actually works. The same cannot be said of local deterministic materialism.” For those interested in the free-will debate, the author addresses the Libet data and the EPR paradox in a way that seems to preserve compatibilism.

13. Waiting For The Other Shoe To Drop Hayden Ebbern, Sean Mulligan, Barry L. Beyerstein [PDF 128KB] A reprint of the Vol. 20, No. 4 Skeptical Inquirer article, July/August 1996, addressing the famous case of the tennis shoe on the windowsill. Following Hyman’s imperative to attack the best evidence, the authors exploit a range of possibilities to justify doubt concerning one of the more prominent NDE accounts in the literature. The authors conclude, “Our investigation cannot prove that Maria’s spirit did not leave her body and return, nor that Kimberly Clark’s recollections and interpretations are wrong. It does, however, show that this case, often touted as the best in the area of near-death studies, is far from unassailable, as its proponents assert.” Of course, if one is a committed skeptic, anything is assailable. It’s quite easy, in fact: all you have to do is doubt.