We are brain activity. So, can brain activity "trust" brain activity, whatever "trust" means in this context? If it means "Is brain activity infallible?", the answer is "no."
Well John, since you believe that a silly bronze age book of magical fairy tales overrides all subsequent scientific discovery, YOU definitely can't trust YOUR brain.
No, not always, and that's okay. We have processes that we have developed to try and catch reasoning errors or the consequences of innate bias. Over time, we have tended towards better answers and discarded bad ones, but on an individual level, it may be hard to see that improvement when our abilities may fail us at any time. Nobody alive (or dead) has had an infallible mind. And we've coped regardless.
It is indisputable that we have developed mechanisms to identify errors in our thinking and improve ourselves. Yet the crucial question remains: why should we trust that these mechanisms truly lead us to the truth? On what grounds can we trust that we are even capable of taking a step towards recognising truth as such? If our brain is the product of random evolutionary processes, a product of chance and necessity, then the question arises as to why this random arrangement of cells and chemicals should be capable of recognising scientific truth. Without a higher, intelligent source that has endowed our minds with the ability to discern truth, our thinking could just as well be oriented towards survival instincts rather than the discovery of truth.
@@Overcrook65 The reason there is obvious. We have no choice. We know that they didn't develop for that but with processes, checks, and balances we can still get accurate answers with enough effort, cross-checking and validation. _"If our brain is the product of random evolutionary processes, a product of chance and necessity, then the question arises as to why this random arrangement of cells and chemicals should be capable of recognising scientific truth. Without a higher, intelligent source that has endowed our minds with the ability to discern truth, our thinking could just as well be oriented towards survival instincts rather than the discovery of truth."_ This reasoning is asinine.
![Who is God? and 3 More Questions for John Lennox at Georgia Tech [Re-Upload]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WMw4R1Qp6Do/mqdefault.jpg)
![Who is God? and 3 More Questions for John Lennox at Georgia Tech [Re-Upload]](/img/tr.png)
......GENESIS CHAPTER 3..... WITH ALL RESPECT FOR TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE
We are brain activity. So, can brain activity "trust" brain activity, whatever "trust" means in this context? If it means "Is brain activity infallible?", the answer is "no."
Well John, since you believe that a silly bronze age book of magical fairy tales overrides all subsequent scientific discovery, YOU definitely can't trust YOUR brain.
No, not always, and that's okay. We have processes that we have developed to try and catch reasoning errors or the consequences of innate bias.
Over time, we have tended towards better answers and discarded bad ones, but on an individual level, it may be hard to see that improvement when our abilities may fail us at any time.
Nobody alive (or dead) has had an infallible mind. And we've coped regardless.
It is indisputable that we have developed mechanisms to identify errors in our thinking and improve ourselves. Yet the crucial question remains: why should we trust that these mechanisms truly lead us to the truth? On what grounds can we trust that we are even capable of taking a step towards recognising truth as such? If our brain is the product of random evolutionary processes, a product of chance and necessity, then the question arises as to why this random arrangement of cells and chemicals should be capable of recognising scientific truth. Without a higher, intelligent source that has endowed our minds with the ability to discern truth, our thinking could just as well be oriented towards survival instincts rather than the discovery of truth.
@@Overcrook65 The reason there is obvious. We have no choice. We know that they didn't develop for that but with processes, checks, and balances we can still get accurate answers with enough effort, cross-checking and validation.
_"If our brain is the product of random evolutionary processes, a product of chance and necessity, then the question arises as to why this random arrangement of cells and chemicals should be capable of recognising scientific truth. Without a higher, intelligent source that has endowed our minds with the ability to discern truth, our thinking could just as well be oriented towards survival instincts rather than the discovery of truth."_
This reasoning is asinine.
No rational answers here critiquing this video 🙄
It's an argument from incredulity. It's invalid.
Is John Lennox speaking from the after life or the current life?
John Lennox, the worlds leading expert in bloviation.
can we trust John Lennox? Definitely not....
Can we trust you? Obviously not 😂
@ obviously, why would you trust an anonomous poster on youtube?
@@matswessling6600 Matts Wessling is an anonymous poster???
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@ you dont know if that is my actual name so, yes.