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?
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.
2 Likes
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.
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.
1 Like