O'Leary points out that in order to maintain faith in naturalism, i.e. the belief that nature is all there is, one has to believe several claims for which there's no empirical evidence whatsoever and which are, at least prima facie, absurd. The claims are these:
- There is a multiverse, that is, an infinite number of universes beyond our own which are undetectable by us.
- Human reason is at best unreliable and at worst an illusion.
- Our sense of being a self is an illusion.
- Our sense that we have consciousness is an illusion.
Michael Graziano tells us ... “Let me be as clear as possible: Consciousness doesn’t happen. It’s a mistaken construct.”Follow the link to see why she says what she does about each of the above assertions.
She might have added to her list of claims the fact that a naturalist must believe that the enormous amount of specific information required to construct the organelles of even the simplest cell somehow arose by chance. It's the equivalent of believing that the information required to construct and run a jet aircraft somehow gathered itself together without any intelligent input from human engineers.
Naturalism is forcing its votaries to jettison the principles of science as it has traditionally been practiced, compelling them to forfeit adherence to scientific objectivity and the demand for evidence. The naturalist believes, for instance, that there is an infinity of universes beyond our own, that life arose against astronomical odds purely by coincidence and through purely mechanical processes. He believes that consciousness, whatever it is, has a physical basis, and he believes all of this without a shred of evidence for any of it. He believes it only because his metaphysical commitments require it. In other words, his belief is an act of blind faith in naturalism.
Naturalism would be laughed off the stage of modern intellectual life were it not for the fact that it's the only alternative to belief in the existence of a transcendent intellect. If one is desperate to avoid the conclusion that such an agent is responsible for the world and for life she will believe whatever is necessary, no matter how contrary to her own experience, in order escape it.
For example, in addition to embracing the extraordinary implausibility of the efficacy of chance to bring about life, in addition to rejecting the aforementioned beliefs in the trustworthiness of reason, the self, and consciousness, a naturalist, to be consistent, should also reject the belief that there's any ultimate meaning or purpose to life, that objective moral values exist, that good and evil are real, that she has free will, and that she has a mind in addition to her brain.
It's all in all a pretty steep price to pay to enable one to avoid the theistic conclusion.
