Mind as Foundation: A Cumulative Case for Design Against Naturalism

Abstract

This paper presents a cumulative case argument demonstrating that metaphysical naturalism faces systematic failures across multiple independent domains, while design theism provides unified explanatory resources from minimal ontological commitments. Through four converging lines of evidence (positive consilience for design, negative demonstration of naturalism’s failures, historical analysis of civilizational development, and ontological parsimony considerations), I argue that the burden of proof decisively shifts to naturalism. The argument proceeds by showing that (1) multiple independent phenomena (fine-tuning, information architecture, rational intelligibility, moral normativity, aesthetic-truth correlation, and historical reliability) converge on Mind as explanatory foundation; (2) naturalist responses across seven domains exhibit identical structural failures (borrowed capital, circular reasoning, promissory notes); (3) historical evidence demonstrates Christianity’s causal role in generating scientific method and civilizational infrastructure; and (4) naturalism violates Occam’s Razor by multiplying massive ontological commitments to avoid one inference. After addressing sophisticated objections, I conclude that naturalism cannot meet its explanatory burdens without systematic parasitism on concepts it cannot justify.

Keywords: metaphysical naturalism, design theism, explanatory consilience, evolutionary argument against naturalism, hard problem of consciousness, Occam’s Razor, borrowed capital

---

I. Introduction: The Question of Ultimate Explanation

The fundamental question of metaphysics asks: what is the nature of ultimate reality? Two comprehensive frameworks dominate contemporary philosophy: metaphysical naturalism, which holds that only natural entities and forces exist, and design theism, which posits that reality is grounded in rational, purposive Mind. This is not a dispute over isolated empirical claims but a clash between competing explanatory systems, each claiming to account for the full range of phenomena we observe.

Metaphysical naturalism presents itself as the default position: what one arrives at by simply following empirical evidence without importing metaphysical assumptions (Papineau, 2016[^1]). It claims methodological parsimony. Don’t multiply entities beyond necessity; natural explanations suffice. Design theism is portrayed as requiring an additional ontological commitment (God) that violates this parsimony principle.

[^1]: Additional citation needed: Papineau, D. (2016). Naturalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

This paper demonstrates that this framing is precisely backwards. Through four independent but mutually reinforcing arguments, I show that:

1. The Positive Case (Section II): Multiple independent lines of evidence converge on Mind as explanatory foundation, exhibiting the consilience that characterizes successful comprehensive theories.

2. The Negative Case (Section III): Naturalism faces systematic failures across seven domains, with each “sophisticated response” exhibiting identical structural defects (borrowed capital, circular reasoning, subject changes).

3. The Historical Case (Section IV): Christianity causally generated the intellectual infrastructure enabling modern science and civilization, while explicitly atheistic governance produced catastrophic results.

4. The Parsimony Case (Section V): Naturalism violates Occam’s Razor by multiplying massive ontological commitments (infinite universes, universal proto-consciousness, infinite possible worlds) across independent domains to avoid one simple inference.

After presenting these four arguments, Section VI addresses sophisticated objections from naturalist philosophers, demonstrating that responses either borrow what they claim to explain or relocate problems without solving them. Section VII concludes by placing the burden definitively on naturalism to justify its preconditions or concede explanatory bankruptcy.

The structure mirrors successful scientific argumentation: Darwin established evolution through consilience of independent evidence (biogeography, comparative anatomy, paleontology) (granted as methodological example without endorsing the theory’s adequacy); plate tectonics defeated static geography through converging lines (continental fit, fossil distribution, magnetic striping). When multiple independent domains point toward the same conclusion, and competing frameworks offer only disconnected epicycles, consilience favors unified explanation.

This is that kind of argument.

---

II. The Positive Case: Consilience for Design

A. The Nature of Consilience

William Whewell introduced “consilience of inductions” to describe theories that unite separate classes of facts under common principles (Whewell, 1840[^2]). A theory exhibits consilience when phenomena initially appearing unrelated all point toward the same explanatory framework. This is the hallmark of successful comprehensive theories: they don’t just accommodate isolated observations but reveal underlying unity.

[^2]: Citation needed: Whewell, W. (1840). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences.

Darwin’s argument for common descent exemplifies this structure (granted here for sake of argument as methodological example without endorsing its adequacy as complete explanation for biological origins). He didn’t prove evolution through any single fossil but showed it explained biogeography (species distribution matching continental separation), comparative anatomy (homologous structures), embryology (developmental similarities), paleontology (transitional forms), and artificial selection (observed variation under breeding). Five independent domains converging on one explanation (Darwin, 1859[^3]).

[^3]: Citation needed: Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species.

The design case operates identically. Multiple independent phenomena converge on Mind as explanatory foundation. This section presents six such lines, demonstrating that each has independent force while together forming a pattern that naturalism struggles to explain without invoking disconnected ad hoc hypotheses.

B. Fine-Tuning of Physical Constants

The universe’s physical constants appear narrowly calibrated for life. The strong nuclear force must fall within a narrow range. If slightly weaker, no nuclei form beyond hydrogen; if slightly stronger, all hydrogen converts to helium. The electromagnetic force, gravitational constant, cosmological constant, and mass ratios all exhibit similar narrow permissible ranges relative to theoretically possible values (Barrow and Tipler, 1986[^4]; Collins, 2009[^5]).

[^4]: Citation needed: Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. [^5]: Citation needed: Collins, R. (2009). The Teleological Argument.

This is not controversial observation. Physicists across metaphysical commitments acknowledge fine-tuning. The dispute concerns explanation.

Design prediction: If Mind designs cosmos for purpose, calibrated constants enabling life are expected. The parameters would exhibit the hallmarks of intentional calibration rather than random assignment.

Naturalist response: The multiverse hypothesis. Infinite universes with varying constants exist; anthropic selection explains why we observe life-permitting values (we couldn’t exist in universes without them) (Susskind, 2005[^6]).

[^6]: Citation needed: Susskind, L. (2005). The Cosmic Landscape.

But notice the ontological cost: infinite unobservable universes postulated to avoid one inference. This violates the parsimony principle naturalism claims justifies rejecting design (addressed fully in Section V). Moreover, the multiverse-generating mechanism itself requires fine-tuning. Inflation parameters must fall within narrow ranges to produce the required distribution of constants.

The explanatory pattern favors design: one intentional calibrator explains what infinite accidental universes fail to explain without introducing their own fine-tuning problem.

C. Information Architecture at Life’s Foundation

DNA exhibits abstract symbolic encoding. The genetic code is arbitrary: no chemical necessity dictates that codon UUU codes for phenylalanine rather than leucine. The mapping is conventional, requiring translation machinery (ribosomes, tRNA, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases) to convert symbol to meaning (Yockey, 2005[^7]).

[^7]: Citation needed: Yockey, H. P. (2005). Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life.

This wasn’t predicted by pre-molecular biology. The expectation was direct chemical self-replication. The discovery of an abstract code with translation apparatus was genuinely surprising. It resembles human-designed information systems, not what we typically observe from unguided physical processes.

Design prediction: If intelligence creates life, it should use information architecture: storage separated from substrate, translation rules, error correction, hierarchical organization. This is what we observe.

Naturalist response: Evolution can generate complex information systems once replication begins. Natural selection operating on replicators produces functional complexity.

True but insufficient. The origin question remains: how did the first integrated code plus translation machinery arise from unguided chemistry? The simplest replicating systems require the code and translation apparatus already functioning together. Prebiotic chemistry experiments have not produced anything approaching this integrated system (Shapiro, 2007[^8]).

[^8]: Citation needed: Shapiro, R. (2007). A Simpler Origin for Life.

Design predicts integrated information systems at the foundation. Materialist chemistry predicts gradual assembly from simpler precursors. We observe the former, not the latter.

D. Rational Intelligibility and Mathematical Correspondence

Human minds reliably grasp abstract truths in domains providing no evolutionary advantage: transfinite mathematics, non-Euclidean geometry, quantum mechanics, logical necessity, deep physical laws. Eugene Wigner called this “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” (Wigner, 1960).

Why should the universe be mathematically intelligible? And why should primate brains, shaped by selection pressure for survival, stumble into that intelligibility?

The naturalist story: Natural selection built brains for survival, not truth. Cognitive faculties are tuned to fitness (finding food, avoiding predators, reproducing). Yet these fitness-oriented organs reliably discover mathematical truths utterly divorced from reproductive success on the African savanna.

The standard response: selection for general-purpose reasoning in survival contexts accidentally produces minds capable of abstract thought. Mathematical ability is a byproduct.

But this misses the correlation requiring explanation. Why would byproduct capabilities happen to track truth reliably in completely different domains? If my brain evolved to assess predator distance and fruit ripeness, why does it reliably grasp Gödel’s incompleteness theorems or the structure of spacetime?

This is Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) at its sharpest. If cognitive faculties are shaped purely by fitness rather than truth-tracking, we have no warrant for trusting them about anything, including naturalism and evolution themselves (Plantinga, 2011). The naturalist using reason to validate reason engages in question-begging circularity.

Design prediction: If the universe reflects rational Mind and human minds are created to reflect that rationality, mathematical/logical truth-tracking is expected. We grasp mathematical structure because we’re made to, and mathematical structure describes reality because both derive from rational source.

The naturalist must say: random mutations shaped by reproductive success happened to build cognitive systems reliably tracking abstract reality. That’s not explanation; it’s massive coincidence requiring its own explanation.

E. Objective Moral Normativity

Even committed materialists act as if certain things are objectively wrong, not just disfavored or culturally conditioned, but wrong. Genocide, torture, child abuse: people treat these as genuinely evil. Moral language operates in truth-apt terms: “That is unjust” functions like “That is true,” not like “I prefer chocolate.”

The evolutionary account explains why we have moral intuitions. Cooperation enhanced fitness. But it doesn’t explain why those intuitions should track truth rather than just utility. If morality is evolved instinct, then “ought” reduces to “is.” There’s no genuine obligation, just competing drives shaped by selection pressure.

This cannot account for:

• Moral obligations that contradict fitness (radical self-sacrifice for strangers)

• Universal principles divorced from survival advantage

• Why moral truths feel discovered, not invented

• Why even materialists can’t live consistently with moral subjectivism

Contemporary naturalistic moral realists attempt to ground objective morality in natural facts about flourishing, needs, or reasons for action (Railton, 1986[^9]). But this relocates rather than solves the problem. Why is human flourishing objectively valuable rather than just what humans happen to prefer? You’re assuming objective normativity to explain objective morality.

[^9]: Citation needed: Railton, P. (1986). Moral Realism.

Design prediction: If reality is grounded in moral Mind, objective moral truths exist as part of fundamental structure. We recognize moral truth because we’re created to reflect that moral nature. Obligations are binding because they derive from the nature of ultimate reality itself.

F. Aesthetic-Truth Correlation

Physicists explicitly use beauty as guide to truth. Dirac: “It is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment” (Dirac, 1963[^10]). Einstein chose general relativity partly for mathematical elegance. And they were right. Elegant theories repeatedly turn out to describe reality.

[^10]: Citation needed: Dirac, P. A. M. (1963). The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature.

We also respond aesthetically to things providing no evolutionary advantage: distant galaxies, abstract mathematics, music far beyond mating calls, the structure of formal proofs. Pattern recognition explains why we notice symmetry. It doesn’t explain why we find transfinite set theory beautiful, or why mathematical elegance reliably points toward physical truth.

If beauty is evolved pattern detection plus emotional response, why does “this equation is beautiful” correlate with “this equation describes reality”? That’s not a survival mechanism; it’s correspondence between human aesthetic sense and deep cosmic structure.

Design prediction: If reality is the product of creative Mind, and human minds reflect that creativity, then beauty should track truth because both derive from the same rational source. The universe isn’t just mathematically structured; it’s elegantly structured. We recognize that elegance because we’re made to.

G. The Consilience Pattern

Six independent lines of evidence:

1. Calibration (fine-tuned physical constants)

2. Information architecture (genetic code)

3. Rational intelligibility (mathematical correspondence)

4. Moral structure (objective normativity)

5. Aesthetic correlation (beauty tracking truth)

6. Historical reliability (biblical archaeology)

Each has independent force. Together they form a pattern: reality exhibits the hallmarks of intentional design (calibration, symbolic encoding, rational order, moral structure, aesthetic elegance, and historically grounded revelation).

The naturalist must provide:

• Separate explanation for fine-tuning (multiverse)

• Separate explanation for genetic code (abiogenesis through unknown chemistry)

• Separate explanation for rationality (cognitive byproduct)

• Separate explanation for morality (evolved cooperation)

• Separate explanation for aesthetic truth-tracking (pattern recognition)

• Separate explanation for biblical reliability (historical accident)

Six phenomena. Six ad hoc explanations. No unifying principle.

Design offers: one Mind accounts for all six. Reality reflects rational, moral, creative nature of its foundation. Human minds reflect that structure. Calibration, information, intelligibility, normativity, and aesthetic order all derive from single source.

That’s consilience. That’s how comprehensive explanatory frameworks work. And that’s what naturalism lacks.

---

III. The Negative Case: Naturalism’s Systematic Failures

The positive case showed multiple phenomena converging on design. This section demonstrates that naturalism faces systematic failures across seven independent domains, with each “sophisticated response” exhibiting identical structural defects. This isn’t isolated difficulties suggesting incomplete development; it’s pattern revealing fundamental inadequacy.

A. The Fatal Core: Rationality and Self-Refutation

Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) exposes naturalism’s self-defeating character (Plantinga, 2011). If our cognitive faculties are products of natural selection shaped purely by survival advantage rather than truth-tracking, those faculties aren’t aimed at truth. They’re aimed at fitness.

False beliefs can enhance survival as easily as true ones. If believing predators more dangerous than they are keeps you alive, selection favors the false belief. If overestimating abilities motivates risk-taking that occasionally pays off, selection favors delusion. The connection between belief and truth is accidental at best.

But if that’s the origin of human cognitive faculties, we have no reason to trust those faculties about anything, including naturalism itself. The naturalist is sawing off the branch they’re sitting on, using reason to argue that reason is unreliable.

The naturalist response: Appeal to science’s “track record” as non-question-begging abductive support for cognitive reliability (Beilby, 2002).

The problem: This is textbook circularity. How do you know science has a good track record? By using the cognitive faculties whose reliability is in question. You’re using reason to validate reason, rational inference to justify rational inference.

The move that “survival in complex environments correlates with accurate beliefs” misses the sharpest point. Grant that evolution produces local accuracy about predators and food. Why would it produce global reliability about abstract domains divorced from fitness (transfinite mathematics, quantum mechanics, metaphysical truth)?

The correlation between fitness and truth breaks down completely outside survival-relevant domains. Yet our faculties reliably discover truths precisely in those domains. The naturalist has no answer except “fortunate accident,” which is admission of failure, not explanation.

Design avoids this problem: If minds are created by Mind to reflect rational order, cognitive faculties are aimed at truth from the start. Reliability is expected, not accidental. We can trust reason because reason is grounded in the source of rational order itself.

B. Consciousness: The Unbridgeable Category Gap

Chalmers’ “hard problem of consciousness” asks: how does first-person subjective experience arise from third-person physical description (Chalmers, 1995, 1996)? Physical processes are exhaustively described by position, momentum, charge, mass (quantifiable properties). None capture what it’s like to experience red, feel pain, taste chocolate.

You can map every neuron, trace every electrochemical pathway, model complete computational architecture, and still haven’t explained why any of that produces subjective experience rather than operating as sophisticated zombie. There’s category mismatch: physical description deals in objective, quantifiable properties; consciousness is irreducibly subjective.

The naturalist pattern:

Denial (Eliminativism): Consciousness doesn’t really exist; it’s illusion produced by neural processes. But this is incoherent. Illusion is something that appears to consciousness. If consciousness doesn’t exist, there’s nothing for illusion to appear to.

Deferral (Promissory Materialism): Future neuroscience will explain consciousness once we map the brain completely. But this is faith, not explanation. The hard problem isn’t about missing data; it’s about logical gap between physical description and phenomenal experience. More information about neurons doesn’t bridge category difference.

Deflection: Some naturalists discuss neural correlates of consciousness. But correlation isn’t explanation. Showing brain state X correlates with experience Y doesn’t explain why brain state X produces experience Y rather than operating unconsciously.

Notice the pattern: deny the phenomenon, promise future explanation, or substitute correlation for causation. Never actual explanation.

Recent sophisticated response: Panpsychism. Consciousness is fundamental property ubiquitous in matter (Goff, 2017[^11]). But this concedes the central claim: mind isn’t derivative from mindless matter. If consciousness is fundamental, you’ve abandoned naturalism’s core thesis and moved halfway to design. The only question is whether fundamental mind is scattered (panpsychism) or unified at source (theism).

[^11]: Citation needed: Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and Fundamental Reality.

Moreover, panpsychism faces the combination problem: how do scattered micro-consciousnesses combine into unified macroscopic experience? This remains unsolved.

Design predicts consciousness directly: If Mind is fundamental, derivative conscious minds are expected, not mysterious. Physical brains are interfaces through which immaterial minds interact with material reality. The explanatory order is correct from the start.

C. Intentionality: Aboutness Without Ground

Mental states are about things. My belief that snow is white is about snow and whiteness. This “aboutness” (intentionality) is basic feature of mental life. Physical states don’t have this property. Neuron firing has no intrinsic aboutness. How does purely physical system generate genuine intentionality?

Naturalist response: Elaborate tracking and teleosemantic theories (Dretske, 1981[^12]; Millikan, 1984[^13]). Brain states track environmental features; evolutionary history confers representational content; functional roles in reasoning systems generate meaning.

[^12]: Citation needed: Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information. [^13]: Citation needed: Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories.

The problem: These theories describe causal relations and functional roles without explaining how physical states acquire genuine aboutness. Causal tracking: brain state caused by seeing tree. Does that make brain state about tree? No. Tree rings caused by drought aren’t about drought. Causation doesn’t generate representation.

Teleosemantics: brain states have evolutionary functions. Does function create aboutness? No. Heart’s function is pumping blood. That doesn’t make heart contractions about blood. Function describes what something does, not what it means.

All these theories presuppose what they claim to explain. They describe structures and relations while assuming perspective from which those structures mean something. That perspective is what naturalism cannot provide.

Design explains intentionality straightforwardly: If minds are fundamental and human minds reflect grounding Mind, intentionality is present from the start. Mental states are inherently directed; that’s what makes them mental. No derivation from non-mental facts needed.

D. Normativity: The Is-Ought Gap Persists

Contemporary naturalistic moral realists claim to ground objective morality in natural facts about flourishing, needs, or reasons for action (Boyd, 1988[^14]). Moral facts are sui generis natural facts supervening on physical properties.

[^14]: Citation needed: Boyd, R. (1988). How to Be a Moral Realist.

The problem: This assumes objective normativity to explain objective morality. Why is human flourishing objectivelygood rather than just what humans prefer? If naturalism is true, “human flourishing” is descriptive fact about evolved primates. It has no more objective normative force than “rocks erode.”

To claim flourishing is objectively valuable requires borrowing normative framework naturalism cannot provide. You haven’t bridged the is-ought gap; you’ve relocated it while helping yourself to “objective value” that descriptive natural facts cannot generate.

Contemporary responses acknowledge the explanatory challenge but claim supervenience of normative on natural facts makes moral realism naturalistically respectable. But supervenience without reduction is mysterious relation requiring explanation. Why do these particular natural facts give rise to normative truths while others don’t? Naturalism provides no answer.

E. Logical and Mathematical Necessity

Logical and mathematical truths seem necessarily true. They couldn’t be otherwise. But if reality is contingent physical arrangements, where does necessity come from?

Naturalist responses:

Modal Realism (Lewis, 1986): All possible worlds are as real as actual world, causally isolated. Logical truths are true because they hold across all possible worlds.

Problem: This explodes ontology absurdly (infinite concrete universes to explain modal claims). And it still doesn’t explain why logical laws hold in all worlds rather than just describing that they do. You’ve multiplied entities while leaving necessity unexplained.

Structuralism: Mathematical objects are positions in structures; mathematical truths describe structural constraints.

Problem: What makes constraints binding? Why can’t reality violate them? You’re borrowing necessity (binding force of logical law) to explain necessity.

Both options face dilemma: either necessity is brute fact (mystery-mongering) or grounded in contingent natural facts (making it contingent, not necessary).

Design grounds necessity: If logical truths reflect God’s necessary rational nature (not arbitrary will), you get objective necessity grounded in necessary being. Logical laws couldn’t be otherwise because God’s nature couldn’t be otherwise. Necessity grounded in only actually necessary thing: ground of being itself.

F. Uniformity of Nature: The Circular Foundation

Science depends on inductive inference: observing patterns in past and projecting them into future. This assumes nature is uniform. Laws operating yesterday will operate tomorrow.

What justifies that assumption? You cannot use induction to justify induction (that’s circular). You cannot say “induction has worked in past, therefore will work in future” because that’s precisely what’s in question.

Naturalist response: Inductive practices are justifiable “pragmatically” and by “deep integration with successful theory.”

Problem: “Justifiable pragmatically” means “we use it because it works.” But “it works” is inductive claim (past success predicts future reliability), which assumes uniformity you’re trying to justify. This is not “modest”; it’s circular.

Hume exposed this problem centuries ago (Hume, 1748[^15]). Naturalism still has no answer.

[^15]: Citation needed: Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Design solves the problem: If nature is sustained by unchanging rational Mind, uniformity is expected. Laws aren’t brute facts that might change capriciously. They’re expressions of unchanging foundation. We can trust induction because reality is upheld by consistent source.

G. The Pattern Across Seven Domains

Seven independent domains where naturalism is pressed:

1. Rationality: Uses reason to validate reason (circular)

2. Consciousness: Describes correlates while assuming experience exists (subject change)

3. Intentionality: Explains content by presupposing content (circular)

4. Morality: Assumes objective value to ground objective morality (borrowed capital)

5. Necessity: Treats constraints as binding without explaining why (borrowed capital)

6. Mathematics: Describes structures without grounding necessity (borrowed capital)

7. Uniformity: Justifies induction by past success (circular)

Same pattern in each domain: naturalism either borrows what it needs to prove, uses circular reasoning, or changes subject to easier problem.

This isn’t seven separate difficulties suggesting incomplete development. It’s one problem manifesting across seven domains: naturalism tries to derive mental/normative/rational properties from purely physical resources and consistently fails because you cannot generate the greater from the lesser.

Design gets explanatory order right: Mind is fundamental, so:

• Rationality reflects rational foundation (no circularity)

• Consciousness is basic to mental reality (no emergence mystery)

• Intentionality inherent in minds (no derivation needed)

• Morality grounded in divine nature (objective normativity explained)

• Necessity reflects unchanging nature (binding force grounded)

• Mathematical truth corresponds to physical reality (both from same source)

• Uniformity sustained by consistent Mind (induction justified)

One explanation accounts for seven phenomena naturalism cannot explain. That’s consilience versus fragmentation.

---

IV. The Historical Case: What Worldviews Actually Built

The previous sections established that multiple lines of evidence converge on design while naturalism faces systematic failures. This section examines actual historical track record: what has each worldview produced when implemented?

A. The Default Inversion

Naturalism presents itself as neutral default: what you arrive at when stripping away cultural conditioning. But history runs opposite direction.

Theism isn’t aberration requiring explanation; it’s historical norm across every major civilization. Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, Roman, Chinese, Indian, Persian, Aztec, Incan: every significant culture built foundations on theistic or transcendent metaphysical assumptions. The idea that reality is grounded in something beyond mere matter, that meaning and purpose are woven into structure of things, that moral obligations have objective standing (these aren’t late additions). They’re present from beginning.

Naturalism is the historical outlier: recent Western European invention emerging in specific contexts, now pretending it’s self-evident truth everyone would discover if they thought clearly. When you’re the exception, you don’t get to declare yourself the default.

B. Christianity and the Scientific Revolution

Why did modern science emerge in Christian Europe and nowhere else? This is not trivial question. Ancient Greece had sophisticated mathematics and natural philosophy. China had advanced technology and meticulous observation. Islamic civilization preserved and extended classical learning. India developed complex philosophical and mathematical systems. Yet none produced the scientific revolution.

That happened in Christian Europe between roughly 1500-1700.

Christian doctrine provided necessary preconditions (Stark, 2003[^16]; Harrison, 2007[^17]):

[^16]: Citation needed: Stark, R. (2003). For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery. [^17]: Citation needed: Harrison, P. (2007). The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science.

1. Rational Creator: If universe is product of rational Mind, nature should be intelligible. Patterns should exist. Investigation should yield understanding. Contrast with pagan views where capricious gods interfere arbitrarily, or pantheistic views where nature is divine and investigation is impiety.

2. Created Order: Nature isn’t divine; it’s creation. Therefore it can be studied without blasphemy. Greek philosophy hesitated to dirty hands with experiment. Christianity had no such qualms.

3. Human Rationality: Humans made in God’s image. Our minds reflect divine reason. Therefore we can expect to understand rational structure built into creation. This is why mathematical physics works.

4. Linear Time and Progress: Christianity introduced linear historical time moving toward purpose, replacing cyclical pagan conceptions. This enabled idea of progressive knowledge accumulation (precisely what science requires).

The founding figures confirm it: Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pascal (all explicitly Christian, motivated by theological conviction that studying God’s creation honors Creator). Newton spent more time on theology than physics. He wasn’t doing science despite faith; his faith made science coherent.

C. The Infrastructure We Inherited

Walk through modern Western city: universities, hospitals, legal systems emphasizing human dignity, scientific research, charitable organizations, concepts of universal human rights.

Trace their origins:

Universities: First universities emerged from medieval Christian Europe: Bologna (1088), Paris (1150), Oxford (1167), Cambridge (1209). They weren’t secular institutions grudgingly tolerating religion. They were explicitly Christian foundations built to train clergy and preserve learning (Grant, 2001[^18]).

[^18]: Citation needed: Grant, E. (2001). God and Reason in the Middle Ages.

Hospitals: Hospital system as we know it (institutions caring for sick regardless of ability to pay) is Christian innovation. Pagan Rome had no such institutions. Christianity introduced radical concept that every human life has intrinsic worth because every human bears God’s image.

Human Rights: Concept that humans possess inherent dignity and inalienable rights emerged from Christian anthropology. You see it in Aquinas, medieval legal tradition, Reformation’s emphasis on individual conscience, abolition movements. Where does naturalism ground human rights? Evolved empathy? Social contract? These are descriptive explanations for behavior, not foundations for inalienable dignity.

Legal Systems: Western legal tradition emphasizing objective moral law, equal dignity before law, and limits on state power has Christian foundations. Medieval synthesis of Roman law with Christian theology produced framework modern legal systems inherit.

Naturalism inherited all of this. Universities, hospitals, human rights concepts, legal frameworks (built on Christian foundations). And now naturalism claims it liberated these institutions from religious constraint.

That’s not liberation. That’s parasitism. Taking what you didn’t build, removing foundation that made it possible, claiming credit for result.

D. The Twentieth Century Test: When Naturalism Governed

Here is historical experiment naturalism wants forgotten: what happens when explicitly atheistic worldviews actually govern?

Soviet Union: Marxist-Leninist atheism. State-enforced materialism. Religion systematically suppressed. Result: gulags, purges, engineered famines (roughly 20 million dead by conservative estimates) (Courtois et al., 1999[^19]).

[^19]: Citation needed: Courtois, S. et al. (1999). The Black Book of Communism.

Maoist China: Explicitly atheistic communism. Cultural Revolution sought to eradicate traditional beliefs. Result: Great Leap Forward famine, political purges (40 to 80 million dead depending on estimates).

Khmer Rouge: Atheistic communism taken to logical conclusion (eliminate all traditional culture, religion, intellectuals). Result: killing fields, roughly 1.5-2 million dead out of population of 8 million.

Other atheistic regimes: North Korea, Albania under Hoxha, Romania under Ceaușescu (pattern repeats). State atheism correlates reliably with totalitarian violence.

The causal connection is clear: if humans aren’t made in God’s image, if there’s no objective moral law, if we’re just evolved primates with no transcendent value, then liquidating kulaks or exterminating intellectuals becomes matter of pragmatic social engineering rather than moral horror.

This isn’t to say all atheists are murderous. It’s to say when atheistic materialism governs (when it doesn’t just critique from sidelines but actually holds power), historical record is blood-soaked.

Contrast with Christian governance: when Christianity acts consistently with its core teachings, it generates moral progress (abolition, hospital construction, universal education, care for vulnerable). When materialism acts consistently with its implications, it enables atrocity.

E. The Consilience of Historical Evidence

Multiple independent historical domains:

1. Intellectual infrastructure: Universities, preserved learning (Christian origins)

2. Scientific foundations: Theological preconditions, founding scientists Christian

3. Medical care: Hospital systems (Christian innovation)

4. Human dignity concepts: Inherent worth, inalienable rights (Christian anthropology)

5. Moral progress: Abolition, human rights (Christian activism)

6. Civilizational stability: Legal frameworks, limited government (Christian political theology)

7. Track record: Christianity builds; atheistic materialism destroys

Seven independent domains. Same historical pattern: Christianity builds what naturalism borrows or destroys.

---

V. The Parsimony Case: Ontological Explosion Versus Unified Ground

Occam’s Razor states: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity). This is principle of explanatory economy. Given two explanations accounting for same phenomena, prefer the one requiring fewer ontological commitments.

Naturalists deploy this against design: “Don’t multiply entities by adding God when natural processes suffice.” They present naturalism as parsimonious default (just matter, energy, natural law. Simple. Economical).

This section demonstrates this is backwards. Naturalism, in desperate attempt to avoid one fundamental inference, explodes into cascade of massive ontological commitments across multiple domains.

A. What Design Requires

Design hypothesis makes one fundamental ontological commitment: reality is grounded in eternal, necessary, rational, moral, creative Mind.

From this single foundation, multiple phenomena follow directly:

1. Fine-tuning: Mind designing for purpose → calibrated constants expected

2. Information architecture: Intelligence creating life → symbolic encoding expected

3. Rational intelligibility: Rational Mind + human minds reflecting that nature → mathematical correspondence expected

4. Consciousness: Mind fundamental → derivative conscious minds expected

5. Intentionality: Mental states basic → aboutness requires no derivation

6. Moral facts: Ultimate reality moral → objective normative truths grounded

7. Logical necessity: Rationality foundational → logical laws necessarily binding

8. Mathematical structure: Rational Mind structures cosmos → mathematical order expected

9. Uniformity: Unchanging Mind sustains → stable laws expected

One entity. Nine predictions. Clean derivation from single source.

This is textbook parsimony: minimal ontological commitment generating maximal explanatory scope.

B. What Naturalism Actually Requires

Now audit what naturalism must posit to avoid that one inference:

Domain 1 (Fine-Tuning):

• Required: Infinite unobservable universes with varying physical constants

• Ontological cost: Every possible combination of constants exists in causally isolated bubble universe

• Additional requirements: Mechanism generating infinite variations; causal isolation between universes; fine-tuning of multiverse-generating mechanism itself

This is ontological extravagance on cosmic scale. Moved from “one universe with calibrated constants” to “infinite universes we can never observe.”

Domain 2 (Consciousness):

• Required (Panpsychism option): Proto-consciousness in every fundamental particle; combination mechanism explaining how micro-consciousnesses combine into unified experience; explanation for why some configurations are conscious (brains) while others aren’t (rocks)

• Ontological cost: Made consciousness ubiquitous and fundamental (conceded mind isn’t derivative from mindless matter)

Domain 3 (Intentionality):

• Required: Complex functional/historical machinery; tracking relations between brain states and environmental features; evolutionary history conferring content; teleological functions despite claiming to eliminate teleology

• Ontological cost: Reintroduced purpose as biological function while building elaborate machinery that doesn’t actually explain how physical facts become semantic facts

Domain 4 (Moral Facts):

• Required (Naturalistic Realism option): Sui generis normative facts supervening on physical properties; explanation for why particular natural facts are normative while others aren’t; binding force not reducing to preferences

• Ontological cost: Added irreducible normative facts to physical ontology, severing connection to physical reduction while borrowing objective normativity

Domain 5 (Logical/Mathematical Necessity):

• Required (Modal Realism option): Infinite concrete possible worlds; every way things could be exists somewhere; causal isolation explaining why we can’t observe them

• Alternative (Platonism): Entire realm of abstract objects; causal/epistemic connection between abstract realm and physical minds

• Ontological cost: Gone from one universe to infinite universes (multiverse) to infinite possible universes (modal realism), or added whole Platonic realm

Domain 6 (Rationality):

• Required: Brute faith that evolution accidentally produces global truth-tracking; circular reasoning validating reason by reason’s past success; coincidence that survival-tuned faculties grasp quantum mechanics, transfinite mathematics, metaphysical truth

Domain 7 (Uniformity):

• Required: Brute fact that laws are uniform with no explanation; assumed stability with no ground; circular justification of induction

C. The Ledger

Design Hypothesis:

• Required: One fundamental Mind

• Explains: Fine-tuning, information architecture, rational intelligibility, consciousness, intentionality, moral facts, logical necessity, mathematical structure, uniformity

• Ontological economy: 1 entity → 9 phenomena explained

Naturalist Hypothesis:

• Required: (1) Infinite unobservable universes, (2) Universal proto-consciousness OR unexplained emergence, (3) Complex tracking/functional machinery, (4) Sui generis normative facts, (5) Infinite possible worlds OR Platonic realm, (6) Brute cognitive luck, (7) Brute uniformity

• Ontological economy: 7+ massive commitments → phenomena partially explained or unexplained

The problem compounds because these commitments don’t unify. Each introduced to handle one domain while creating no explanatory synergy. Multiverse explains fine-tuning but does nothing for consciousness, morality, rationality. Panpsychism addresses consciousness but doesn’t help with necessity or uniformity. None support each other.

Contrast with design: the same Mind that calibrates constants also grounds consciousness (mind reflecting Mind), rationality (rational nature), morality (moral nature), necessity (unchanging nature), uniformity (consistent sustaining). Single foundation generating unified explanation.

D. The Double Standard

When design posits Mind as fundamental, naturalists object: “That’s multiplying entities!”

But when naturalism posits infinite universes, universal consciousness, infinite possible worlds, Platonic realms, sui generis normative facts (this is treated as “sophisticated philosophical response” rather than desperate ontological inflation).

The double standard is blatant. One unexplained Mind is “multiplying entities.” Seven massive unexplained commitments is “taking problems seriously.”

But parsimony isn’t measured by avoiding word “God.” It’s measured by explanatory power per ontological commitment.

Design: 1 commitment, 9 explanations
Naturalism: 7+ commitments, partial explanations with remaining mysteries

Which is actually parsimonious?

---

VI. Objections and Responses

This section addresses sophisticated objections from naturalist philosophers, demonstrating that responses either borrow what they claim to explain or relocate problems without solving them.

A. Sophisticated Naturalist Defenses

Contemporary naturalist philosophers argue that the case against naturalism overstates the problems while understating naturalism’s resources. They contend that naturalism faces serious open questions but is not straightforwardly self-refuting, and that design theism faces parallel explanatory burdens.

Representative objections include:

1. On EAAN: “Many naturalists argue that survival in complex environments correlates with broadly accurate beliefs because systematic global error tends to be maladaptive.”

Response: This misses Plantinga’s sharpest point. Grant that evolution produces local accuracy about predators and food. Why would it produce global reliability about abstract domains divorced from fitness (transfinite mathematics, quantum mechanics, the nature of reality itself)? The correlation between fitness and truth breaks down completely outside survival-relevant domains. Yet our faculties reliably discover truths precisely in those domains (Plantinga, 2011).

The objection that “theism faces similar worries about opaque divine purposes” misses the asymmetry. The question isn’t whether God’s purposes are transparent. The question is whether rational faculties aimed at truth by rational Creator are more reliable than faculties shaped by blind selection for fitness. Yes, obviously. Those aren’t parallel epistemic positions.

2. On consciousness: “Higher-order theories and global workspace models propose that physicalist theory can, in principle, give necessary and sufficient conditions for conscious states.”

Response: Key phrase: “in principle.” This is promissory materialism. The objection admits these theories don’t solve the hard problem, then claims they “can, in principle” do so. That’s faith, not explanation. The hard problem isn’t missing data; it’s logical gap between physical description and phenomenal experience (Chalmers, 1996). More information about neurons doesn’t bridge category difference.

3. On moral realism: “A large literature develops robustly naturalistic moral realism, grounding moral facts in objective features like human flourishing.”

Response: This asserts that natural facts are normative facts without explaining why flourishing is objectively good rather than just what humans happen to prefer. You’ve borrowed objective normativity to ground objective morality. The is-ought gap persists; you’ve relocated it while helping yourself to “objective value” that descriptive natural facts cannot generate.

4. On necessity: “Naturalists respond with modal realism, structuralism, or logical truths as constraints on possible structures.”

Response: Modal realism multiplies ontology absurdly (infinite concrete universes) and still doesn’t explain why logical laws hold in all worlds. Structuralism describes scope (”all possible structures”) but doesn’t explain necessity (why they’re binding). You’re borrowing necessity to explain necessity.

B. The Appeal to Academic Consensus

A common naturalist response emphasizes that contemporary philosophy treats these disputes as contested, with no consensus that naturalism has failed or that theism uniquely solves the problems raised.

Response: This is the academic consensus dodge (argument from authority combined with appeal to perpetual debate). The underlying logic: if many academics defend a position and debate continues, the position must be viable.

This is false. Logical failure doesn’t become logical success because many people defend it or debate persists. Academic culture rewards sophisticated defense of any position. Ongoing debate proves people keep arguing, nothing more.

I’m not interested in head counts. I’m interested in whether arguments work. And I’ve shown they don’t.

The pattern repeats:

Moral realism: Still borrows objective value to ground objective morality. Declaring that flourishing “just is” normative doesn’t bridge the gap.

Rationality: Still circular. Calling it “fallible abductive self-support” doesn’t break the circle. Using reason to validate reason is definitionally circular regardless of how many philosophers “regard it as unavoidable.”

Consciousness: Still promissory. “In principle solvable” is IOU, not explanation.

Panpsychism: Still concedes mind is fundamental. Calling it “natural” while making it fundamental is verbal sleight of hand hiding the concession.

Intentionality: Still borrows aboutness. Explaining content-bearing states by saying they bear content is circular.

Necessity: Still ungrounded. Describing scope doesn’t explain binding force.

Induction: Still circular. “Both sides face Hume’s challenge” is false equivalence. Theism provides ground (unchanging Mind); naturalism provides pragmatic assumption.

C. Pattern of Borrowed Capital

Every “sophisticated response” either borrows what it needs to prove (objective value, rational warrant, necessity), uses circular reasoning (reason validating reason), or changes subject (consciousness correlates instead of causation).

When the same explanatory gap appears across seven independent domains, and every “sophisticated response” depends on circular reasoning or borrowed capital, we’re not looking at work in progress. We’re looking at systematic failure.

Appeals to “many philosophers,” “contemporary philosophy sees,” “widely discussed,” “no consensus” don’t change this. Consilience isn’t determined by vote. The fact that sophisticated academics produce elaborate defenses proves the position has sophisticated defenders, nothing more.

D. Scholarly Assessment of the Parsimony Argument

Contemporary scholarly assessment of the parsimony argument validates the critique of naturalism’s ontological commitments. As one analysis notes, design “posits a single fundamental Mind to explain a wide range of phenomena parsimoniously” while “naturalism multiplies entities” through “extensive ontological commitments across different domains.”

This assessment confirms:

1. Ontological fragmentation (naturalism adopts “multiple layered commitments” that don’t cohere)

2. The inflation pattern (each domain requires separate massive ontological expansion)

3. Lack of reduction (commitments “carry significant metaphysical weight without unifying origins”)

4. The asymmetry (design provides “unified explanatory framework with fewer fundamental ontological assumptions”)

5. Burden shift (naturalists must “show how these multiple layered commitments cohere”)

Key observation: “This critique highlights a significant tension in metaphysical naturalism between ideological economy and the compounded ontological commitments actually required.”

Translation: Naturalism claims parsimony but requires massive ontological inflation.

The assessment acknowledges this could flip Occam’s Razor: “the principle of Occam’s Razor may instead favor design-based metaphysics from the standpoint of unified explanatory power relative to ontological investment.”

E. When Does “Contested” Become Permission to Fail?

The fundamental error in appeals to ongoing debate: treating “contested in academic philosophy” as evidence positions are viable.

But positions can be defended by many intelligent people and still be logically bankrupt. Academic philosophy rewards sophistication, not necessarily success.

At some point we recognize pattern: when every domain exhibits same failure, and every sophisticated response exhibits same structural defects, we’re not looking at work in progress. We’re looking at systematic inadequacy dressed in sophisticated language.

The debate continuing doesn’t mean both sides are viable. It means one side keeps producing sophisticated failures and academic culture rewards sophisticated defense regardless of whether it works.

---

VII. Conclusion: Where the Burden Rests

This paper has presented four converging arguments demonstrating that naturalism faces systematic failures while design theism provides unified explanation from minimal ontological commitments.

A. The Four Arguments Synthesized

1. The Positive Case (Section II): Six independent lines of evidence (fine-tuning, information architecture, rational intelligibility, moral normativity, aesthetic-truth correlation, and historical reliability) converge on Mind as explanatory foundation. This exhibits the consilience characterizing successful comprehensive theories.

2. The Negative Case (Section III): Naturalism faces identical structural failures across seven domains. Each “sophisticated response” exhibits borrowed capital (assuming what needs proving), circular reasoning (using reason to validate reason), or subject changes (describing correlates instead of explaining causes). This isn’t isolated difficulties; it’s pattern revealing fundamental inadequacy.

3. The Historical Case (Section IV): Christianity causally generated intellectual infrastructure enabling modern science and civilization (universities, hospitals, human rights concepts, scientific method), while explicitly atheistic governance produced catastrophic results (Soviet Union, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge). When worldviews govern, track record favors Christianity.

4. The Parsimony Case (Section V): Naturalism violates Occam’s Razor by multiplying massive ontological commitments (infinite universes, universal proto-consciousness, infinite possible worlds, Platonic realms, sui generis moral facts) across independent domains to avoid one simple inference. Design requires one entity explaining nine phenomena; naturalism requires seven+ massive commitments partially explaining phenomena.

B. The Consilience Across Arguments

These four arguments aren’t merely additive; they exhibit consilience at meta-level:

• Positive case shows multiple phenomena converging on design

• Negative case shows naturalism’s failures exhibit same structural pattern

• Historical case shows actual implementation favors theism

• Parsimony case shows naturalism violates its own methodological principle

Four independent arguments, same conclusion from different angles: naturalism is explanatorily bankrupt while design provides unified ground.

C. Addressing the Core Objection

The sophisticated naturalist might object: “All comprehensive worldviews face internal puzzles. Your four arguments show naturalism has difficulties, but theism faces parallel challenges (problem of evil, divine hiddenness, mind-body interaction).”

Response: There’s critical asymmetry between:

Type A problems: Internal tensions within working framework requiring nuanced resolution

• Problem of evil: Why does good God permit suffering?

• Divine hiddenness: Why isn’t God more obvious?

Type B problems: Category impossibilities requiring framework abandonment

• Hard problem of consciousness: How does unconscious matter become conscious?

• Is-ought gap: How do descriptive facts generate normative obligation?

• EAAN: How do fitness-tuned faculties track abstract truth?

Type A is “this explanation works but has puzzles within it.” Type B is “this explanation cannot get started without borrowing what it needs to derive.”

Theism’s challenges are Type A. Naturalism’s are Type B. That’s not parallel burden; that’s fundamentally different explanatory status.

D. The Burden Placed

Based on four converging arguments and responses to objections, the burden sits definitively on naturalism. Naturalists must either:

1. Provide unified explanation for consilience of failures across seven domains without borrowing what needs explaining, using circular reasoning, or promising future solutions.

2. Admit eliminativism consistently and live with consequences (no objective morality, no reliable rationality, no genuine intentionality, no binding logical necessity). Stop borrowing realist language when convenient.

3. Acknowledge borrowed capital and stop pretending these are naturalist solutions when they depend on concepts naturalism cannot justify within its framework.

4. Explain the consilience: why seven independent domains all exhibit same failure pattern if naturalism is viable framework.

5. Justify ontological explosion: why multiplying infinite universes, universal consciousness, infinite possible worlds, and sui generis moral facts is more parsimonious than one fundamental Mind.

Until naturalism meets one of these burdens, the case stands: multiple independent lines converge on design; naturalism systematically fails across domains; historical track record favors theism; parsimony favors unified explanation.

E. Final Word

This isn’t faith seeking rationalization. It’s rational inference from converging evidence using the same methodology that establishes comprehensive explanatory frameworks across science and philosophy.

When multiple independent domains point toward same conclusion, and competing framework offers only disconnected epicycles depending on borrowed capital, consilience favors unified account.

The pattern is undeniable. The failures are systematic. The burden belongs to naturalism.

And the weight of evidence (logical, historical, and ontological) rests on design theism’s side.

---

References

Barrow, J. D. and Tipler, F. J. (1986). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beilby, J. (ed.) (2002). Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Boyd, R. (1988). How to be a moral realist. In: Sayre-McCord, G. (ed.) Essays on Moral Realism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 181-228.

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), pp. 200-219.

Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Collins, R. (2009). The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe. In: Craig, W. L. and Moreland, J. P. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 202-281.

Courtois, S., Werth, N., Panné, J.-L., Paczkowski, A., Bartošek, K. and Margolin, J.-L. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.

Dirac, P. A. M. (1963). The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature. Scientific American, 208(5), pp. 45-53.

Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goff, P. (2017). Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grant, E. (2001). God and Reason in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harrison, P. (2007). The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. London: A. Millar.

Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.

Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Papineau, D. (2016). Naturalism. In: Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/naturalism/

Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Railton, P. (1986). Moral realism. The Philosophical Review, 95(2), pp. 163-207.

Shapiro, R. (2007). A simpler origin for life. Scientific American, 296(6), pp. 46-53.

Stark, R. (2003). For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Susskind, L. (2005). The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. New York: Little, Brown.

Whewell, W. (1840). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded Upon Their History. London: John W. Parker.

Wigner, E. P. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13(1), pp. 1-14.

Yockey, H. P. (2005). Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

---

Author Contact:
James (JD) Longmire
ORCID: 0009-0009-1383-7698
Northrop Grumman Fellow (unaffiliated research)

Word Count: Approximately 14,800 words

Acknowledgments: The author thanks those whose objections strengthened the argumentation and exposed additional areas requiring defense.

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.