Difficult Questions for Atheists? Part 1

322 thoughts on “Difficult Questions for Atheists? Part 1”

1. Pingback: Difficult Questions for Atheists? Part 2: Something from Nothing – Finding Truth

2. Hi Travis,

   ”You are differentiating between logical reasoning and inference by association”

   I wasn’t aware I was doing that, in fact I’m not at all sure I even know that there is a difference. All I’m trying to do is explore how things might work.

   At first I was trying to understand how natural selection might lead to a cause-effect brain that has the ability to do ground-consequence reasoning. In my last comment I realised that your Socrates example wasn’t based on natural selection, but on “fire together, wire together” in an individual’s brain as they grew, so I tried to see how that process would work. And I think it shows how simple reasoning/inference can work but not (1) how complex reasoning can work reliably, nor (2) how we can go from specific results to generalised logic or argument.

   But I think we are both at the limit of our present knowledge of how brains work (I know I am), so I think I need to read some more before I get any further.

   And I still think the fundamental problem, for this blog, hasn’t really been explained.

   God-belief is supposed to have arisen from agent detection. If so, it should be part of the cognitive faculties we all receive from natural selection – certainly Justin Barrett thinks so, and if I read them rightly, so do Jonathan Haidt and Andrew Newberg. So your brain and mine should have started with a natural tendency to see agency in the universe and thus to believe in some sort of god. But you no longer do, while I have come to a more specific belief in a particular theology.

   So how do we explain this if determinism is true?

   Natural selection has given our brains similar capacities and we are both probably similarly educated. But (following the line of your Socrates example) when dealing with the question of God, your brain has set up different associations to mine – your synapses have learnt to wire in different ways because they have fired in different ways. And that because they have had different inputs or have responded to those inputs in different ways. There was never any real choice about this because both our brains are determined.

   This has several implications.

   (1) You haven’t chosen to be an atheist because it is more logical or better evidenced (except in some compatibilist way that you couldn’t have changed), but because your inputs led to your synapses firing in a certain way which you couldn’t have changed, given the circumstances. I am exactly the same, but my conclusions are opposite.

   (2) If we were talking about a simple question like running from a lion or stepping in front of a moving truck, consequences and social interactions would likely bring our views together, and in the past this happened with religious belief too. But not now. In our countries at least, we are free and able to continue in whatever way our synapse firing determines, without bei g forced by social pressure or even survival to do something different..

   (3) Logical argument is actually futile, because our brains don’t do logic, they do cause and effect. Logical argument will “work” if our brains have correlated ground-consequence with cause-effect in the same way, and if our inputs have led to our fire-wire associations being the same, but in this case they appear not to be.

   (4) Conversions/deconversions occur not when people are persuaded by logic, but when they read and listen to alternative views that lead to their fire-wire associations to change. They don’t choose this, however, it just happens.

   So those seem to me to be the implications of determinism, even of the compatibilist variety. And they flow, it seems to me, from your example and the logic behind it. I think it shows that either determinism is false or our lives and arguing are a delusion. And, as a corollary, this blog shouldn’t be called “Finding Truth” but “Following our Synapses” or something similar. 🙂

   LikeLike

3. Hi Dave, two brief comments …..

   “I’ve had that concept in the back of my mind from one of your first comments”

   This question isn’t simply natural vs supernatural. There are atheists/naturalists who are not physicalists (Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers) and there are theists/christians who are physicalists (Nancey Murphy, Kevin Corcoran).

   “I’ve basically been trying to wrap my head around the concept of something that is uncaused and yet not random”

   Yeah, me too. But I think the first step is to realise that (1) causes can be necessary but not sufficient. (2) multiple causes can be in place, (3) there can be non-determinative causes (= reasons), and therefore (perhaps) random and multiples causes and reasons can all be part of a choice.

   “Anyway, I think we can safely jump off this carousel. Until next time! Cheers Mate! (Or whatever guys in Australia say)”

   Yes, I think I need to do some more reading of people who have thought about this much more than I have so far! And “cheers mate” is one Aussie option. Perhaps my response should be “Have a good day Y’all!” 🙂

   LikeLike

4. Admittedly, I’ve only read the last few comments out of the last 100 or so, but I still think the possibilities you lay out are too limiting, UnkleE.

   Yesterday, I spent hours struggling with a programming problem. This morning, I happened upon a solution. I can’t really explain why this solution works, because the problem I was encountering really shouldn’t have been happening. But it would be silly for me to conclude that the solution I found isn’t a solution at all, and then stop using it. It works. And I’m confident that there is an explanation I’m just not aware of.

   I’m okay with saying that I don’t know why this particular solution works, but it seems to me that the root of most of the questions you’ve asked here revolve around you not being okay with saying “I don’t know” to certain things. I certainly don’t think you should stop believing in God because we all have questions about determinism, compatibilism, etc. Nor do I think I should start believing in God for the same reasons. These are just interesting questions we don’t know about yet.

   I don’t know… that’s just how it seems to me.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

5. Eric,
   It’s clear that you’re ready to call it quits on this, and since Nate has moved on I’m sure you’ll have your hands full defending #2, so that’s fine. For the record, I’m fine with the implication of not choosing our beliefs – I’ve never felt I’ve ever had a choice in my beliefs and I find that the predictive model, aiming to align predictions with the real world according to what it has learned, provides a nice paradigm for understanding credence in terms of prediction error (or surprise). And your statement that “Logical argument is actually futile, because our brains don’t do logic, they do cause and effect.” demonstrates that I have utterly failed in my attempt to explain how logical reasoning can be understood as the natural product of cause-effect processes in an associative network. If that associative network is the “you” that is participating in an argument then “you” are doing the reasoning and “you” are exposing yourself to inputs that may alter the predictions which define the reasoning and beliefs “you” hold. Doesn’t sound futile to me.

   LikeLiked by 2 people

6. Travis: When you say you have “utterly failed in your attempt to explain how logical reasoning can be understood as the natural product of cause-effect processes,” I think you’re being a bit harsh on yourself. I think you, and others here, have done a very reasonable job at disarming the unkleE “objections,” and all he’s done, even in his last few posts, is repeat the same old stuff over and over and remain “incredulous.”

   Sometimes you have to repeat what philosopher David Lewis said: “I don’t know how to refute an incredulous stare.” 🙂

   LikeLike

7. Hi Nate,

   This has been a very helpful discussion and i have learnt a lot. Thanks.

   “it seems to me that the root of most of the questions you’ve asked here revolve around you not being okay with saying “I don’t know” to certain things.”

   Yes, I think that is correct. And I think it is a good and very human way to be. Most discoveries, I guess, come from people wanting to find out answers to questions they don’t currently know.

   Your deconversion probably worked this way. You wanted to find out the truth about OT prophecies, and I imagine if someone had said: “These are just interesting questions we don’t know about yet.” you wouldn’t have felt that was satisfactory.

   I think that the whole world tells us something – about evolution, and about God if he exists. And I think we can learn a lot by delving into things. I used to disbelieve evolution (I also disbelieved Genesis 1 as literal history). I investigated and decided evolution was OK after all. I was told certain things as a young christian about Jesus and the Bible, those things didn’t quite gel with me, so I investigated, read, and came to some quite different conclusions. I’m interested in cosmology and neuroscience for similar reasons – to find out what’s true and what are the implications. I’m delving into family history and have had my DNA tested to help resolve mysteries.

   So just as the existence of evil and suffering in the world tell me something, so does the apparent existence of consciousness, conscience, free will and rationality. Delving into those things can tell us something about the world. I’m OK with not knowing everything I’d like to know, but I’m much happier finding out where I can, even if it requires me to change my views sometimes.

   Anyway, it has been a great discussion, thank you again.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

8. Dave: You raised a very good question, but, after multiple posts, unkleE never answered it. He claimed that your thinking about choice being either random or caused is too “binary,” and unkleE continues to propose that there is a “third way” which is neither random nor caused. When you asked him for an example of a choice that was neither random nor caused, unkleE mentioned something about him “choosing a meal” as being neither. When you pressed him again to explain why this was neither caused nor random, he simply re-stated his point, no explanation given.

   In this last iteration, unkleE’s asserting that “(1) causes can be necessary but not sufficient.” You didn’t ask for yet another assertion, you asked for an example of a choice that’s neither random nor caused. If causes (and randomness) are insufficient, what is an example of the missing “third way” that would provide sufficiency? But no example nor any kind of demonstration of this was offered, just another bold assertion, leaving your question still unanswered.

   Then unkleE claims that “(2) multiple causes can be in place.” But “multiple causes” are still causes, so again this leaves no room for his “third option” which is supposed to be neither due to causes (whether multiple or not) nor random. So this makes no sense.

   Finally unkleE says that “(3) there can be non-determinative causes (=reasons), and therefore (perhaps) random and multiple causes and reasons can be part of a choice.” This is makes even less sense and it strikes me as a definitional word game. What exactly is a “non-determinative cause”? Is this a new “type” of cause that unkleE is now defining? A “non-determinative cause” sounds like an oxymoron, but how is this new type of cause not causal???? This is not explained, and it does not provide the example that was asked of unkleE.

   unkleE proceeds to somehow identify “non-determinative causes” as “=reasons,” (with an “equal” sign and everything) as if somehow this wordplay explained his “third option.” Again, how are “reasons” not causes? This is not answered nor explained.

   Frankly, I think it’s disingenuous of unkleE to claim that he’s not talking about “natural vs. supernatural” when this seems to be his entire motivation here. In fact, it seems to me that, according to unkleE, this blog shouldn’t be called “Finding Truth,” but “Following our Uncaused Little Miracles,” or something similar. 🙂

   LikeLiked by 1 person

9. Hi Travis,

   I’d be sorry if you thought you had “utterly failed” in your explanations. I feel you have stimulated me and challenged me in a most profitable way. You have offered an explanation that seems to me to possibly explain some aspects of cognition, but not others, and not to the reliability we actually experience. But even if I fully accepted your explanation for all levels of cognition, I don’t think it changes my comment about the futility of argument if determinism is true, because it seems to me that your explanation entails the view you express “I’ve never felt I’ve ever had a choice in my beliefs”, so argument won’t change beliefs unless it changes the patterns of cause and effect in our brain which have built up over time.

   But I find it so interesting that you can say “I’m fine with the implication of not choosing our beliefs” because I wouldn’t be, which illustrates, I think, one of the major reasons why we think differently. Being a christian requires me to give up some of my choices to follow Jesus, but it seems that being a thoughtful atheist requires giving up some things I would find more difficult. I am reminded of the last verse of a very old Bob Dylan song:

   My friends from the prison, they ask unto me
   “How good, how good does it feel to be free?”
   And I answer them most mysteriously
   “Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?”

   Thanks so much for the opportunity to discuss, be challenged and to learn. All the best to you.

   LikeLike

10. Hi UnkleE,

    Just a couple of quick things as this discussion (maybe?) winds down:

    I identify a lot with your last comment to me, and I would never suggest that someone just accept “I don’t know” as an ending place. It’s important to always search for better and fuller answers.

    At the same time, there are certain topics in which our current position has to be “I don’t know” even though we should always be looking for ways to move to a better position. I think this topic is one of those. I enjoy discussing cognition, free will, etc. But these questions ultimately come down into the realm of neuroscience which is a field that we still understand every little about. I feel that some of your positions, like logic can’t exist without dualism, is way too limiting, considering how much disagreement about that there is in these very new fields. That’s all I was trying to get at.

    Secondly, your last comment to Travis about choosing beliefs is interesting to me. In what way do you think beliefs can be chosen? I mean, could you choose to believe in Santa Claus or unicorns right now? Could you suddenly choose to stop believing in a divine Jesus?

    LikeLiked by 1 person

11. At the same time, there are certain topics in which our current position has to be “I don’t know” even though we should always be looking for ways to move to a better position.

    Such as …

    Will we ever discover if Jesus really was gay, bisexual or just a cross dresser?
    Did Jesus need a Tetanus shot after they pulled the nails out of his hands and feet?
    Is it true that the Pope has Jesus’s foreskin in a sealed jar, handed down from one of the Orient Kings who haggled a camel and a bag of dates for it.
    Is it true that after Joseph croaked at the age of 97, Mary got remarried to a balding, self-employed plumber from Caesarea who was renowned throughout the area for his extra-long pipe.

    God only knows, right?

    LikeLiked by 1 person

12. unkleE says: ” [Travis has] offered an explanation that seems to [unkleE] to possibly explain some aspects of cognition, but not others, and not to the reliability we actually experience.”

    But again, why “some” aspects of cognition and not others? Where is the distinction drawn exactly, and why draw the distinction in the first place? As discussed with Natural Selection, this distinction (“supported” with little more than personal incredulity) appears to be artificially concocted to get unkleE to his desired outcome that “cognition can’t exist as, or arise from, natural processes, therefore magic-of-the-gaps is needed.”

    What “experienced reliability” is unkleE talking about here? Has unkleE not heard or “experienced” that “experiences” can be misleading? Has unkleE never heard of “cognitive biases”? We’re re-treading very old territory here.

    Also, has unkleE not raised “disagreement” as one of his “objections” to physical processes yielding cognition? (This was the unkleE Theorem.) Now unkleE is using “reliability” to bolster his case. So which is it: (1) Is cognition so “reliable” that it couldn’t possibly arise from natural processes, or (2) Is there so much frequent “disagreement” that it couldn’t possibly arise from natural processes? This appears to be self-contradicting, and it seems like unkleE wants to “have his unfalsifiable cake and eat it too.” No matter what, unkleE has to get to his desired pet conclusion: “It couldn’t possibly arise from natural processes, therefore magic-of-the-gaps is needed.”

    unkleE says that even if he “fully accepted” Travis’ explanation “for all levels” of cognition: “[Argumentation would be futile if Determinism were true], because […] an argument won’t change beliefs unless it changes the patterns of cause and effect in our brain which have built up over time.” (My emphasis in bold.)

    But this simply does not follow. Under Determinism, changing cause-effect patterns would precisely lead to changed beliefs, which would mean that argumentation would not be “futile.” unkleE circularly assumes that changes in cause-effect patterns in the brain couldn’t possibly lead to actual changed beliefs, and then concludes that therefore arguments would be “futile” under Determinism. Does unkleE not appreciate that this is precisely what’s under discussion here? Does unkleE not see the circularity in his statement?

    Here’s a closer look:

    Def 1. An argument is “futile” if it “doesn’t change beliefs.”
    Def 2. On Determinism, the statements “changes beliefs” and “changes brain cause-effect patterns” are equivalent.

    unkleE’s statement: On Determinism, an argument is “futile” because an argument won’t change beliefs unless it changes brain cause-effect patterns.

    From Def 1., substituting “doesn’t change beliefs” for “is futile,” and from Def 2., substituting “changes beliefs (on Determinism)” for “changes brain cause-effect patterns” into unkleE’s statement, we’re left with:

    unkleE’s statement: On Determinism, an argument [doesn’t change beliefs] because an argument won’t change beliefs unless it [changes beliefs (on Determinism)].

    In other words: An argument doesn’t change beliefs (on Determinism) because an argument doesn’t change beliefs (on Determinism) unless an argument changes beliefs (on Determinism).

    This circularity is prevalent throughout unkleE’s comments here, and it’s been pointed out before, to no avail. unkleE assumes what he wants to prove, boldly asserts it as “fact,” and sneaks it into his “objections” and “incredulities,” to support his “conclusions.”

    unkleE says that he wouldn’t be able to be “fine with the implication of not choosing [his] beliefs.” First, it really doesn’t matter whether anyone “would be fine” with a fact about reality. Either human beings can “choose” their beliefs or not, and whether we like it or not, or whether we “would be fine” with it or not, won’t change the facts one whit. Yet again: This is an informal fallacy known as Argument to Consequences. It’s so well-known for so long, that it even has a Latin name.

    Now, does unkleE reach his conclusions through wishful thinking, or does he care about whether his conclusions are actually true? This is the sort of faulty thinking that normal children outgrow by the age of 6 or 7, when they realize that they can want something really, really hard, with closed eyes and tight fists, and yet, that something they wish so hard might or might not correspond to reality, since reality couldn’t care less what we wish for.

    Second, can unkleE demonstrate that human beings have the ability to change their beliefs at will? This is known as “doxastic voluntarism,” something that the overwhelming majority of philosophers, psychologists, etc. reject. In one of my earlier comments, I mentioned that, if someone took me to the roof of my house and asked me to believe that if I jumped off the roof I wouldn’t fall, no matter whether they asked nicely or put a gun to my head, I still would likely not believe it. I may arrive at my beliefs for good or for bad reasons, but I could no more believe that I wouldn’t fall off my roof if I jumped, than I could believe in the existence of Santa Claus or the existence of a Jewish zombie that talks to people in their heads.

    If unkleE wants to assert that people can control their beliefs, he would have to demonstrate that this actually happens. unkleE seems to be conflating “beliefs” with “choices,” and with “arguments.” They are, of course, not the same.

    unkleE says that “Being a christian [sic] requires [him] to give up some of [his] choices to follow Jesus…” Based on the above commentary, however, the question is: Does it also require him to give up his rationality in the process?

    LikeLike

13. Eric,
    My rejection of direct doxastic voluntarism has nothing to do with wanting to conform to a naturalistic worldview – it’s the state of affairs that I find upon review of the subjective experience. We’ve been through this before and I am not particularly interested in rehashing it again here, but if you have been assuming all along that we need to be able to choose our beliefs in order for them to be rational then that might explain some of the confusion as to how free-will has anything to do with the question. I don’t see why choice is relevant to the perceived rationality of our beliefs; the assessment of rationality is an evaluative process that feeds back to support or revise existing beliefs or non-beliefs. But this is a completely different question than the relationship between cause-effect and ground-consequence.

    By the way, I expect that in the not too distant future I will write up my own post on the argument from reason in light of the neurological models we’ve been discussing, so that will be another platform for engaging with the topic if you want to take it up again.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

14. Hi Nate,

    ”there are certain topics in which our current position has to be “I don’t know” even though we should always be looking for ways to move to a better position.”

    Yes, I agree. But we judge a hypothesis by its ability to explain the evidence. Occam’s Razor requires us to explain the evidence in the simplest way. So if your best answer to the issue of free will or of the beginning of everything is “I don’t know” then your worldview doesn’t even begin to satisfy Occam and that counts against it as a hypothesis. It is the same as the problem of evil counting against theism, with one difference – I admit that this counts against theism, whereas it is rare to find an atheist who will admit that not knowing about those things counts against their atheism.

    I find it doubly problematic because free will is part of our experience as people. Introspection is a valuable source of information not readily available to objective science – it tells us about consciousness, qualia, etc (Nagel’s classic What is it like to be a bat? addresses this). Sure, introspection can be wrong, as can science, but it tells us something, and if science and logic leads us to “I don’t know”, surely introspection counts for something?

    ”In what way do you think beliefs can be chosen? I mean, could you choose to believe in Santa Claus or unicorns right now? Could you suddenly choose to stop believing in a divine Jesus?”

    Yeah, interesting question. I agree with you that we can’t always choose our beliefs – sometimes facts, or feelings, force us. But I think other times we can. Where there are competing factors, we can choose which ones to trust more and hence what we’ll believe. We can choose to trust a person, or not. In my mid to late teens, I went a year believing that Jesus truly was the son of God, but refusing to give in and commit to following him. I think, from what you have said, you did the same in the opposite direction – you went for some time desperately holding on to christian belief even while your brain was telling you it was less and less likely.

    So, no, I couldn’t “right now” choose any of those things, but I certainly could get to beliefs I don’t hold to now if I focused my reading and my will in a different way to how I currently do. And I think everyone is the same. One of the things this discussion of free will has shown me is that if determinism is true, what we focus on is likely to lead us to our beliefs – which I guess is why christians go to church regularly and atheists visit this blog!

    LikeLike

15. @UnkleE

    Yes, I agree. But we judge a hypothesis by its ability to explain the evidence. Occam’s Razor requires us to explain the evidence in the simplest way.

    So let’s look at the empty tomb, shall we?

    Using your definition, what is the simplest explanation of the events surrounding the supposed empty tomb?

    1. The character, Jesus of Nazareth, was resurrected/resurrected himself, moved the large boulder blocking the entrance and walked out, then afterwards an angel appeared alerting those who arrived at the tomb that Jesus had arisen and scarpered.

    or …

    2. The body was removed and buried somewhere else?

    or

    3. The entire episode is a narrative construct / plot vehicle and like all common criminals, Yeshua was removed from the cross and dumped in a communal grave or left for the dogs and crows?

    LikeLiked by 1 person

16. Nate: I totally agree with you when you say that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer in many, if not most, instances of human deliberation. In fact it might be the only honest and respectable answer. It certainly beats claiming to know the answer while knowing nothing of the sort, or pretending to know the answer while offering a non-answer, like substituting a “mystery” with another one.

    I also agree that there’s much that’s not known about consciousness, the mind, etc. But I have to differ when you say that this topic of LFW is one of those where the answer is that “we simply don’t know.” Yes, it’s true that much is not known about the workings of the mind, but it’s also true that we know some things really well. We don’t need to know everything to know certain things well. This would be sort of like an “argument from ignorance” but in reverse: “We don’t know everything therefore we don’t know anything.” In the case of LFW I think the philosophical and scientific arguments and evidence point to LFW being almost certainly false.

    This is not only because the concept itself is untestable (we can’t “replay the tape”), but it’s also because a priori the ‘Uncaused, Non-random, Non-physical Component” appears to be an incoherent concept, and because there are good scientific reasons to reject it. Again, the reasons are not only that there is no evidence for it, but that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Until this evidence against LFW can be overcome, allusions to “introspection,” “experiences,” or “subjective feelings” should not be taken seriously, anymore than they are taken seriously when determining whether Quantum Mechanics or Relativity are “real.”

    LikeLike

17. Pingback: Disingenuous, or just plain dumb? – A Tale Unfolds

18. Hi Travis,

    “I don’t see why choice is relevant to the perceived rationality of our beliefs; the assessment of rationality is an evaluative process that feeds back to support or revise existing beliefs or non-beliefs. But this is a completely different question than the relationship between cause-effect and ground-consequence.”

    I guess we are as far apart as ever. I think either choice or design is necessary for rationality. A computer can produce rational outcomes because it is designed to do so. A theist can believe our brains can produce rational outcomes because she believes God designed the processes that produced the brain. Until the process by which natural selection produced the brain can be shown to be effective design, then I cannot see how the brain can be anything more than rational about very simple matters. You think otherwise. As the Talking heads sang: “Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.” 😦

    “I expect that in the not too distant future I will write up my own post on the argument from reason in light of the neurological models we’ve been discussing”

    I will read it with interest, but not sure if I will enter the fray again. I plan to write my own summary of the issues, but I will hopefully do some more reading before then. Thanks again.

    LikeLike

19. Travis: Your point about “choice having nothing to do with the perceived rationality of our beliefs” still stands unchallenged. unkleE asserts that “either choice or design is necessary for rationality” and claims to be “as far apart as ever,” from you on your point about “choice,” yet he does nothing to refute your point about “choice,” and shifts over to “design” (the old Two-Step Shuffle yet again). Go figure why he’s so “far apart” from you on your point, yet doesn’t even bother to address your point directly.

    I for one, would love to see a demonstration–instead of a shuffle–of how “choice” enters into rationality. What exactly is “chosen” in your Socrates syllogism, for starters?

    As for unkleE’s old canard that “a computer produces rational outcomes because it is designed to do so,” this entirely misses the point and ignores its implications. Just as one example of many, ANNs are only given a general purpose architecture in a completely randomized “unlearned” state. They are then allowed to learn from examples on their own. They can capture “rational” patterns embedded in those examples which were not even known to their “designers” beforehand, let alone “designed” by them into the machine in the first place. unkleE can ignore this all he wants, but a fact is a stubborn thing, “same as it ever was.”

    unkleE says: “A theist can believe our brains can produce rational outcomes because she believes God designed the processes that produced the brain.”

    Yes, a theist can believe a lot of things, and be misguided in every single one of them, too. 🙂

    unkleE says: “Until the process by which natural selection produced the brain can be shown to be effective design, then I cannot see how the brain can be anything more than rational about very simple matters.”

    Oh, but it has been shown to produce “effective design.” Recalcitrant denial of one of the most successful and best established scientific models in all of science which has exquisite explanatory power and scope, does nothing to refute it. Again, the demarcation between “very simple” cognition and more “complex” cognition is ad hoc, contrived to produce a pet conclusion, and has neither been clearly defined, nor substantiated in any way, because, despite repeated challenges and opportunities to do so, unkleE has not:

    (1) Demonstrated that “complex” cognition cannot be advantageous for survival and reproduction, or

    (2) Demonstrated that even if “complex cognition” could be advantageous for survival and reproduction, it cannot be subject to Natural Selection.

    We’re still waiting for that one. Instead, unkleE has simply stated over and over again that “he cannot see” this, but has not produced a single coherent argument for why. An inability to “see” how this can happen may reflect either actual or willful cognitive blindness on unkleE’s part, and does not substitute for an explanation of the alleged failure of the model.

    It is patently clear that unkleE knows very little about “computers,” Natural Selection, or even about how to construct coherent arguments, yet he reaches sweeping “conclusions” while relying on his breathtaking misinterpretations. It’s actually a bit comical to see someone who’s completely out of his depth pretending to reach misguided “conclusions.” Others here repeatedly accuse unkleE of “having an agenda” or being either “disingenuous, or just plain “thick,” and maybe this is why.

    Finally, unkleE’s inexhaustible lack of self-awareness is nothing short of astounding. unkleE insists on “demonstration” while at the same time hanging his hat on “magic-of-the-gaps-ahem!-goddidit.” unkleE claims that a scientific model with mountains of evidential support requires “leaps of faith.” Yet what do we get as an alternative? That some unnamed “she” theist “can believe” that goddidit.

    I’m not one given to psychoanalysis of interlocutors, and I could be entirely wrong, but, after such lengthy exchanges, it strikes me as very plausible that unkleE’s “mission” here is not to engage in rational discourse or to learn anything about a complex subject, but to advance his cocksure Christian agenda by planting “little seeds of doubt,” with sickly sweet politeness, among all ‘them atheists who frequent this blog so that they might come to Jesus. While this may fly in Jesus blogs, it seems to be having the opposite effect here. As that great philosopher, Walter Sobchak, once said: “Am I Wrong?” 🙂

    LikeLike

20. If you go back …. way back! to similar posts that unklee has somehow managed to wheedle out of of poor Nate you will find he behaves in exactly the same manner with more or less the same arguments.

    And to date he has never managed to win over a single person to his side and leaves pretty much everyone believing he is nothing but a ginormous, disingenuous twit. (it’s Sunday so I am being polite)

    Yes, we get it…. he was born in sin.
    Yes … we get it, he has to atone or a least believe that the Lake Tiberius Pedestrian is the only route to heaven.
    And yes, we realise he is supposed to warn us.
    And yes, we understand that if we refuse to listen we know that all us dirty rotten atheists and other vermin are … … going to Hell. And this is because we choose to do so because we have farking Free Will

    Right … we get it!

    But for Frak sake, can’t he wait until we are all dead before the torture starts?

    LikeLike

21. Pingback: Difficult Questions for Atheists? Part 3: Fine-Tuning – Finding Truth
22. Pingback: Difficult Questions for Atheists? Part 4: Miracles – Finding Truth