RE: ...Truth?
June 28, 2017 at 6:54 pm
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2017 at 6:56 pm by ManofYesterday.)
(June 28, 2017 at 6:37 pm)Alex K Wrote:(June 28, 2017 at 6:31 pm)ManofYesterday Wrote: However, under something like Christianity, the brain is the product of an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good immaterial mind. So the Christian has good reason to believe their brains are good at ascertaining truth.
That should read "the brain is *claimed* to be the product of..."
That is not a good reason automatically, it merely would be a good reason if the premise were true, which is begging the question. Nothing can be concluded from this statement about Christianity.
That's the point I was making, obviously. I was comparing two world views. First I followed where atheism leads and then I followed where Christianity leads. I also explained how it would be difficult for the atheist to reconcile their belief that the brain can be trusted to produce true beliefs with their belief that their brain is the product of merely cold and mindless natural processes. Christianity doesn't have this same difficulty.
That being said, if this is all you have in response to my previous post (a strawman/misunderstanding), then I must have done an amazing job.
Is there anything else that you'd like to add?
(June 28, 2017 at 6:41 pm)Alex K Wrote: When theistogians want to refute atheism, it's always COLD, MINDLESS evolution they argue about. Always cold and mindless. You can see them struggling with what they know the evidence leads to, but which they cannot accept on an emotional level.
Wait, so you don't think your brain is the product of cold and mindless evolution?
(June 28, 2017 at 6:51 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:(June 28, 2017 at 6:31 pm)ManofYesterday Wrote: Under atheism, the brain is the product of cold and mindless natural processes and there is no mind driving them. How atheists can believe their brain is reliable for ascertaining truth while also believing the above is mind boggling. Often atheists respond to this charge by saying our brains are good at ascertaining truth because we wouldn't have survived if they weren't. That may sound like a good response at first, but it isn't. False beliefs can increase survivability. Evolution may give me the false belief that the boogeyman is inside every McDonald's Big Mac, causing me to stay away from Big Macs. This would save me from harming my health by eating Big Macs, increasing my survivability, but through the power of a false belief. This is a comedic example, but there are multitudes of other examples you could conjure up that are more serious. Even if evolution alone gave people true beliefs when it came to things like "don't go near that animal or it'll eat you," or "don't touch fire because it harms you," what about more abstract things like mathematics or philosophy? Does being good at math or metaphysics increase or decrease survivability? Probably not or probably by not much. So maybe our mind is good for basic things like "fire is hot" but it isn't good for complex ideas.
However, under something like Christianity, the brain is the product of an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good immaterial mind. So the Christian has good reason to believe their brains are good at ascertaining truth.
god is all good, pa-lease. Read much? If the product of god they should be pretty good at killin and rapin also.
Yeah, I read a lot. Do you read at all?
