“In my view, there are reasons to think that the current hylomania characteristic of naturalists is due in large measure to pneumatophobia or, more specifically, to a fear of God… For these naturalists, if one abandons strong physicalism one has rejected a scientific naturalist approach to the mind/body problem and opened himself up to the intrusion of religious concepts and arguments about the mental.”

Moreland quotes Thomas Nagel who echoes what McWhorther concedes,

“I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.”

McWhorther continues “The problem with this is (and I don’t want to believe in God it’s probably because of this) the problem with that is, isn’t that a little dull?”

But would SETI scientists really think it is dull to find out it is aliens who sent us a message and not a freak, purely physical event. I think the prospect that an intelligence is the cause for the universe, DNA and skunks is way more interesting.

If I were a naturalist I would ask myself: How does this fear of God motivate me and how does it affect the quality of my work?

There is one thing I would like to add. Skunk’s scent gland has been mentioned as an example of “protective” device. Franz Heikertinger who dismissed effectivenes of “protective” devices compleletely had mentioned this in a small remark. Some traveller at the end of 19.century described a native tribe who ate skunks and have no problems with their scent.

There is always someone (be it human or animals) who are not deterred by “protective” devices. This fact led Heikertinger to the statement that natural selection could not have played any role either in mimicry or evolution itself.

http://cadra.wordpress.com/