Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[Astreja]

Organisms with unreliable minds are more likely to die out, leaving a gene pool of more reliable minds.

This is an astonishing claim to make. I cannot trust a monkey to perform a heart surgery in my chest, even if it means that these monkeys are capable of selectively improving their fingers movements and become "more" reliable.

Don't worry, Parsim0ny -- first the monkey has to learn to read, write and speak a human language, graduate pre-med university with a high GPA, get accepted to medical school and pass all the exams, do a 5-year residency in Cardiac Surgery, do a 3-year Fellowship, and get hired by a hospital.  I for one *would* trust any simian that could achieve all that.  Because of the educational time required, the comparatively long-lived white-headed capuchin and the Guinea baboon are the most likely candidates.

More likely we'll see cardiac robots long before that happens, though, and ambitious monkeys will have to content themselves with other careers (parkour coach; rigger, roofer or skywalker; Shakespearean transcription) or explore entrepreneurship.

[downbeatplumb]

That's a state of your ignorance not a fact about atheists or the processes that produced our minds .

As an atheist, what part of God are you still interested in?

Unless you're on day two of being an atheist, you really shoudn't have time for the concept of a God.

Personally I find the believers an endless source of fa

scination. 

---

Simple.  Organisms with unreliable minds are more likely to die out, leaving a gene pool of more reliable minds.

This is an astonishing claim to make. I cannot trust a monkey to perform a heart surgery in my chest, even if it means that these monkeys are capable of selectively improving their fingers movements and become "more" reliable.

Not at the moment, but evolution could eventually produce a monkey that could do that, hell it could select an octopus that could do that given time and the right impetus.

[paulpablo]

Only under the assumption that God exists one can know for sure that his mind is reliable.

Instead of immediately posting insulting meme photos, I'm going to give you a chance to reword this. I'm no dummy, and I'm pretty good with words, and I don't think these are words, in this order, can possibly represent an idea that you actually hold.

The correct statement would be, only under the assumption that god exists can we assume that god has created our minds reliable and we can reliably assume he exists.

Or in other words, only under the assumption that god exists can we assume that god exists.

[Amarok]

Then you must not trust your surgeon because he is an ape who has learned just that skill . Note most humans without years of training could do this task either . One wonders why a god would not just give us a brain that knows every important skill . Why is learning needed if a super mind designed our brain.

---

As an atheist, what part of God are you still interested in?

Unless you're on day two of being an atheist, you really shoudn't have time for the concept of a God

What the duck are you talking about

[ManofYesterday]

How can a product of an unconscious natural process be reliable ?

Simple.  Organisms with unreliable minds are more likely to die out, leaving a gene pool of more reliable minds.

First, one has to define what they mean by reliable. Reliable with respect to what?
 
Under atheism, evolution is unconscious, mindless, cold, etc. It's a mechanism; and there's no consciousness behind the mechanism. What's more, it's a mechanism that didn't have to exist. The natural world could have came into being--or could have existed for eternity--without a mechanism like evolution. Evolution just happens to exist and it functions in a particular way. And the way it functions could have been different. Nevertheless, it functions in our world through mutations and reproduction. If a mutation increases a species’ chance of surviving and reproducing, then it will be passed down to later generations. A brain that is tuned for ascertaining truths and falsehoods doesn't necessarily follow from this process. For instance, a mutation could be introduced that negatively affects the cognitive faculties but nevertheless dramatically increases the survivability of the species through a different means. This would then be passed down to later generations. Or a mutation could be introduced that produces a false belief, but the false belief increases survivability. Finally, it may be that our brains are very good at things like "stay away from spiders" or "don't jump off cliffs" but they aren't good at abstract concepts like mathematics and philosophy. For example, maybe there was a mutation that increased our chances of understanding Calculus or Quantum Mechanics, but since being good at Calculus or Quantum Mechanics doesn’t increase your chances of surviving millions of years ago, it was left behind for simpler things like “don’t stay under water for too long.”
 
This is why it should be difficult for the atheist to reconcile their belief that their brains are ultimately the product of natural processes—nothing more or nothing less—and the belief that their brains are reliable for ascertaining truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know, a mind capable of accurately representing the environment and it's relationship to that environment probably has a strong selective pressure in it's favor.  Is that not, itself, an example of ascertaining truth?

"Don't stay too long underwater" doesn't even require a mind, and even in the presence of creatures with a mind it's largely handled by instinctive and non-voluntary responses. A person, for example, who tries to intentionally drown themselves will still attempt to swim up and will invariably gulp water. That peaceful downward sinking scene is movie magic, lol. In reality, we jerk like a worm on a hook.

[ManofYesterday]

I don't know, a mind capable of accurately representing the environment and it's relationship to that environment probably has a strong selective pressure in it's favor.  Is that not, itself, an example of ascertaining truth?

/facepalm...

Did you not read my entire post? Did you not comprehend it?

Here is a snippet from my post:

"A brain that is tuned for ascertaining truths and falsehoods doesn't necessarily follow from this process. For instance, a mutation could be introduced that negatively affects the cognitive faculties but nevertheless dramatically increases the survivability of the species through a different means. This would then be passed down to later generations. Or a mutation could be introduced that produces a false belief, but the false belief increases survivability. Finally, it may be that our brains are very good at things like "stay away from spiders" or "don't jump off cliffs" but they aren't good at abstract concepts like mathematics and philosophy. For example, maybe there was a mutation that increased our chances of understanding Calculus or Quantum Mechanics, but since being good at Calculus or Quantum Mechanics doesn’t increase your chances of surviving millions of years ago, it was left behind for simpler things like “don’t stay under water for too long.”

Notice how I provided an example of how evolution could be good at certain things but bad at others. The point is evolution doesn't necessarily produce a reliable brain for ascertaining truths. The fact that evolution lead to the production of a brain that is predisposed to the belief "fire hurts and destroys" doesn't mean that evolution lead to a brain that produces or is predisposed to only or mostly true beliefs. You've effectively ignored the meat of my post--which seems to be a trend on this forum.

---

"Don't stay too long underwater" doesn't even require a mind, and even in the presence of creatures with a mind it's largely handled by instinctive and non-voluntary responses.  A person, for example, who tries to intentionally drown themselves will still attempt to swim up and will invariably gulp water.  That peaceful downward sinking scene is movie magic, lol.  In reality, we jerk like a worm on a hook.

Well, first of all, we’re talking about brains, not minds.
Secondly, yes, a brain would be required in that instance—or something akin to a brain. Instinctive reactions are from the brainstem, which is part of the brain. The brainstem was produced by evolution.
And you’ve effectively missed the meat of my post.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure I read your post, it wasn't exactly profound.  

The last line, though, was profoundly silly.  

Conveniently, that's what I was responding to.

Is there a difference between talking about brains and minds when it comes to human beings? Doesn't seem to be, and no..brains aren't required for survival response. Plenty of organisms without brains exhibit survival behaviors.

[ManofYesterday]

Sure I read your post, it wasn't exactly profound.  

The last line, though, was profoundly silly.  

Conveniently, that's what I was responding to.

Is there a difference between talking about brains and minds when it comes to human beings?  Doesn't seem to be, and no..brains aren't required for survival response.  Plenty of organisms without brains exhibit survival behaviors.

I don't think the post is "exactly profound," I see it as common sense. I feel like a person with an average IQ should be able to follow it.

Yet, you're unable to follow it.

The last line isn't profoundly silly. Read my response.

Yes, typically scientists and philosophers make a distinction between mind and brains.

Finally, you haven't refuted any of the key points of my original post. Why?

---

Sure I read your post, it wasn't exactly profound.  

The last line, though, was profoundly silly.  

Conveniently, that's what I was responding to.

Is there a difference between talking about brains and minds when it comes to human beings?  Doesn't seem to be, and no..brains aren't required for survival response.  Plenty of organisms without brains exhibit survival behaviors.

"no..brains aren't required for survival response"

A brain or something akin to a brain is necessary. That's what I wrote. Are you dyslexic? Moreover, we're talking about human beings and human brains, are we not? So in the context of that, it's the brainstem's job to stop a person from downing themselves; and the brainstem is part of the brain; and the brain comes from evolution.

Now, when are you going to stop chasing red herrings and tackle the main point of my original post?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think the post is "exactly profound," I see it as common sense. I feel like a person with an average IQ should be able to follow it.

Yet, you're unable to follow it.

The last line isn't profoundly silly. Read my response.

You don't think so?  Let's take another look;

This is why it should be difficult for the atheist to reconcile their belief that their brains are ultimately the product of natural processes—nothing more or nothing less—and the belief that their brains are reliable for ascertaining truth.

Yup, still profoundly silly.

Yes, typically scientists and philosophers make a distinction between mind and brains.

Finally, you haven't refuted any of the key points of my original post. Why?

Because I don't care enough to sift through your every thought dropping, and there's nothing you can do to make me?