# Viruses and the Problem of Evil

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/viruses-and-the-problem-of-evil/9909>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [March 12, 2020, 1:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/viruses-and-the-problem-of-evil/9909 "2020-03-12T01:23:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2020, 7:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/viruses-and-the-problem-of-evil/9909/92 "2020-03-15T19:44:53Z")

</div>

So your conclusion that the mind is a product of the brain is itself a product of the brain. But since there is no reason for neural activity to have anything to do with truth, how can we give any credence to your conclusion?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [March 15, 2020, 7:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/viruses-and-the-problem-of-evil/9909/93 "2020-03-15T19:56:14Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> But since there is no reason for neural activity to have anything to do with truth, how can we give any credence to your conclusion?

No reason for neural activity to have anything to do with truth? Explain how you reached THAT conclusion. What an odd thing to say.

But if you’re concerned that organic brains may not accurately perceive reality, then you will of course have to admit that your religious beliefs are also suspect, as your organic brain appears to have simply generated these by the same “neural activity” which you think is so highly suspect.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2020, 3:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/viruses-and-the-problem-of-evil/9909/94 "2020-03-16T15:31:25Z")

</div>

> [@cwhenderson](#):
>
> This isn’t surprising to me since Behe and I probably think a lot alike. To both of us, the natural world is suggestive of a Creator. I’m pretty sure you were not expecting me to produce unassailable evidence supporting my position 🙂.

Again, I am only trying to contrast how each of us approaches these questions in keeping with the PS motto of trying to find common ground.

For the skeptical atheist, “suggestive of” is a synonym for “human bias”. There are many things humans can observe that are suggestive of the Sun moving about the Earth or suggestive of the Earth being flat. Skepticism isn’t so much about which conclusions are allowed, but the method one uses to arrive at conclusions. Relying on an emotionally charged human intuition is not going to convince many skeptical atheists.

> [@cwhenderson](#):
>
> Where I differ from Behe is that I believe that what we can see in the living world today can be fully explained by natural processes that the Creator put into place when “something” really did come from “nothing”. In contrast, Behe believes that the natural processes first put into motion are insufficient and require occasional additional divine intervention.

For many of us skeptical atheists, it does come down to a question of parsimony. From what we can see, a natural world without a creator would look very much like the one we see. We don’t see anything that requires a creator, and we also see a universe that seems indifferent to our existence.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/viruses-and-the-problem-of-evil/9909.md?page=3)