The Great Contradiction

[remez]

We all get to think for ourselves.

How?

Freewill is assumed and yet argued against in atheistic reasoning. (welcome to freethought but it doesn't exist atheistically)

Which was precisely the point of my challenge......the contradiction.
so..............

Why on earth would bilby change his thoughts? What, because we atheists all believe what we are told as long as it's by a famous authority figure? Do you accept Haldane as an authority figure you have an intellectual duty to follow? (You know he was an atheist, don't you?) Well, if you don't take for granted that "There's no God." must be a good idea because Haldane said so, then why in blazes would you expect us to take for granted that the quote you cited must be a good idea because Haldane said so? We all get to think for ourselves. Welcome to freethought.

Go back and digest the context of the thread which I originally addressed in post 32. The OP was attempting to point out the ridiculous nature of theistic reasoning being in a sense brain dead. But he had faith in his brain for that reasoning. Hence my quote.

I was providing a direct contradiction in atheistic reasoning.

How did bibly challenge my response?
b/c
What bibly offered seemed to be a non sequitur that then went on to actually support my contention to begin with.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps in my haste to respond I shouldn't have assumed that the quote I cited was well known. I thought it to be common knowledge, and that is my fault. But your reply does not reflect that you knew this quote and why it fits this context.

I say that because your reply sort of seems to be making my point and your charge of my reasoning being a non sequitur does not seem to fit.

So here is the quote........properly stated..........

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

Care to change your thoughts?

Not at all. The full quote in no way changes my criticism of it, the only change is that I now think J. B. S. Haldane isn't as good at thinking as he seems to imagine himself, nor as his fans seem to think him.

He remains guilty of a massive non-sequitur.

While you appear to have opted to hide behind an appeal to authority instead.

 

[remez]

Full quote.....

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

So..........

Not at all. The full quote in no way changes my criticism of it, the only change is that I now think J. B. S. Haldane isn't as good at thinking as he seems to imagine himself, nor as his fans seem to think him.

Haldane’s point is from a naturistic viewpoint (foundational to atheism) there is no thinking. He simply had to say that. You had to disagree with him. Christians have to believe what they believe. That’s the way naturalism works….there is no freewill, thinking or choice. It is all but illusion bc all is naturally deterministic.

If that is not the way naturalism works then please provide a reasonable paradigm that can naturally account for freewill.

Thus the existence of freewill can be more reasonably explained by theism. Not in the straw man representations you purported earlier, but in the understanding that we are made in the image of the creator. By that I mean he have mind, emotion and freewill.

Your worldview can not account for the existence of freewill. Theism has always accounted for it. Which worldview therefore better accounts for freewill, and by obvious extension, thinking?

He remains guilty of a massive non-sequitur.

You have not made your case for that. You are just assuming thinking exists without need for an explanation of its existence.

This is not a gotg reasoning. This is a methodological reductionism of materialisms dead end. It cannot and never will reasonably account for the existence of freewill materially and by extension naturally. Its origin must be supernatural.

While you appear to have opted to hide behind an appeal to authority instead.

I’m not hiding behind anything.

I’m just throwing the scripture of your materialism back at you to reveal an overt contradiction. Just like you folks do with the Bible. Your charge of fallacy missed the target.

Back to post 33 to further my contention…….

Whether or not "I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true" is entirely unrelated to whether or not "my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain".

How is it unrelated? If your mental processes (freethought) are deterministic then how do you have any freedom in materialism to conclude (think) they are true?

You’re espousing that free thinking is deterministic.
How can you unpack that contradiction?

Which….was my point.
And to support my point you added (also from post 33)…..

Do you think that if the output of a CPU is determined wholly by the motion of electrons in the chip you have no reason to suppose that the output is correct? If so, you have no way to tell whether I even wrote this, so you would be crazy to respond to it.

I don’t think that at all, I’m theistic. That is the logical product of atheistic thinking. Which again was my point. Hence why I claimed that you seemingly supported my reasoning.

 

[ruby sparks]

Again, none of that makes any sense to me whatsoever.

My spidey-sense is warning me of the proximity of Sophistry.

 

[skepticalbip]

Again, none of that makes any sense to me whatsoever.

My spidey-sense is warning me of the proximity of Sophistry.

Remez's 'argument' does amount to one of the more elaborate straw men I have seen. He spins an absurd story that "all atheists must believe" to show why atheism is wrong... a disingenuous argument at best. Anyone who is basing their argument on what they claim someone else believes is someone that should be ignored. No matter how much Remez wants atheists to worship Haldane, reality is that even atheists know that he often writes philosophical nonsense.

 

[abaddon]

Again, none of that makes any sense to me whatsoever.

You have to see "nature can't but spirits can" as "reasonably plausible" for it to seem to make sense.

Asserting free will is asserting creation ex nihilo. Agency transcends causation. Nature can't do that so that leaves us with spirits as the most plausible explanation. The human, or more specifically his mind or spirit, gets a special privilege over causation and the influence of his environment and all nature and is a miniature "first cause". He's outside the causal stream but steps in to pull the levers and switch the course now and again like a miniature god. Humans and God are the exceptions to the mechanism of nature -- they're "supernatural".

So is there total determinism or total free will in our choices? Probably neither - the answer's somewhere in the middle. But whatever the answer is, "the supernatural" will never be a plausible explanation to anything except for persons who reference ancient myths for answers.

 

[skepticalbip]

The thing missing in the whole "free will" nonsensical argument is an explicit definition of "free will" that all agree to before starting the argument. Without an agreed upon definition, there is no sensible argument or conclusion possible.
.
.
.
Of course, there would likely be no argument if all parties first agreed on an explicit definition of what they were arguing about. So this argument seems to boil down to the definition of "free will" not so much whether or not humans have it.

 

[remez]

Remez's 'argument' does amount to one of the more elaborate straw men I have seen. He spins an absurd story that "all atheists must believe" to show why atheism is wrong... a disingenuous argument at best.

It wasn’t an argument. I was quoting the scripture of naturalistic materialism to present a contradiction in atheistic reasoning.
And….
To your …."all atheists must believe"…what is the alternative? I addressed the common default position. So again what is your alternative to materialistic naturalism?
Seems like you are the one trying to spin their way out of having to address an overt contradiction.

Anyone who is basing their argument on what they claim someone else believes is someone that should be ignored.

More Spin to avoid addressing the contradiction. The title of this thread is “The Great Contradiction” posted by an individual missing the greater contradiction in their own reasoning.

No matter how much Remez wants atheists to worship Haldane, reality is that even atheists know that he often writes philosophical nonsense.

Again what is your alternative?
And…….
Here is your chance to show us where he is wrong. Appealing emotionally to your audience here does not make Haldane wrong and amounts to no more than spin.

The thing missing in the whole "free will" nonsensical argument …

Again is wasn’t an argument it was a presented contradiction in context to the OP.

…..is an explicit definition of "free will" that all agree to before starting the argument. Without an agreed upon definition, there is no sensible argument or conclusion possible.

You obviously knew what I was presenting bc you freely chose to infer that my reasoning wrong. Thus here is your chance to provide a reasonable definition that would defeat my reasoning for the contradiction rather than hiding in the spin by fallaciously appealing to the emotions of the audience.

 

[remez]

Again, none of that makes any sense to me whatsoever.

You have to see "nature can't but spirits can" as "reasonably plausible" for it to seem to make sense.

Asserting free will is asserting creation ex nihilo. Agency transcends causation. Nature can't do that so that leaves us with spirits as the most plausible explanation. The human, or more specifically his mind or spirit, gets a special privilege over causation and the influence of his environment and all nature and is a miniature "first cause". He's outside the causal stream but steps in to pull the levers and switch the course now and again like a miniature god. Humans and God are the exceptions to the mechanism of nature -- they're "supernatural".

So is there total determinism or total free will in our choices? Probably neither - the answer's somewhere in the middle. But whatever the answer is, "the supernatural" will never be a plausible explanation to anything except for persons who reference ancient myths for answers.

Not exactly, but getting closer.

But specifically here is the contradiction of trusting your reasoning when from a naturalistic paradigm it is totally deterministic thereby rendering reasoning itself an illusion. Yet you believe your reasoning.
So……
Instead of creating straw men of the theistic position, why not address the contradiction from the book of Haldane.

 

[skepticalbip]

It wasn’t an argument. I was quoting the scripture of naturalistic materialism to present a contradiction in atheistic reasoning.
And….
To your …."all atheists must believe"…what is the alternative? I addressed the common default position. So again what is your alternative to materialistic naturalism?
Seems like you are the one trying to spin their way out of having to address an overt contradiction.

More Spin to avoid addressing the contradiction. The title of this thread is “The Great Contradiction” posted by an individual missing the greater contradiction in their own reasoning.

No matter how much Remez wants atheists to worship Haldane, reality is that even atheists know that he often writes philosophical nonsense.

Again what is your alternative?
And…….
Here is your chance to show us where he is wrong. Appealing emotionally to your audience here does not make Haldane wrong and amounts to no more than spin.

What utter nonsense. You are still sticking with your strawman presuming to declare what atheists think.

The thing missing in the whole "free will" nonsensical argument …

Again is wasn’t an argument it was a presented contradiction in context to the OP.

…..is an explicit definition of "free will" that all agree to before starting the argument. Without an agreed upon definition, there is no sensible argument or conclusion possible.

You obviously knew what I was presenting bc you freely chose to infer that my reasoning wrong. Thus here is your chance to provide a reasonable definition that would defeat my reasoning for the contradiction rather than hiding in the spin by fallaciously appealing to the emotions of the audience.

Again you are telling me what I think. I have no idea what you specifically mean by, 'free will' because you haven't said. Unlike you, I don't believe that I can read the minds of others.

And yet you still do not define explicitly what you mean by the phrase, "free will".

 

[ruby sparks]

Again, none of that makes any sense to me whatsoever.

You have to see "nature can't but spirits can" as "reasonably plausible" for it to seem to make sense.

Asserting free will is asserting creation ex nihilo. Agency transcends causation. Nature can't do that so that leaves us with spirits as the most plausible explanation. The human, or more specifically his mind or spirit, gets a special privilege over causation and the influence of his environment and all nature and is a miniature "first cause". He's outside the causal stream but steps in to pull the levers and switch the course now and again like a miniature god. Humans and God are the exceptions to the mechanism of nature -- they're "supernatural".

So is there total determinism or total free will in our choices? Probably neither - the answer's somewhere in the middle. But whatever the answer is, "the supernatural" will never be a plausible explanation to anything except for persons who reference ancient myths for answers.

Not exactly, but getting closer.

But specifically here is the contradiction of trusting your reasoning when from a naturalistic paradigm it is totally deterministic thereby rendering reasoning itself an illusion. Yet you believe your reasoning.
So……
Instead of creating straw men of the theistic position, why not address the contradiction from the book of Haldane.

Oh I get it now. It’s a detour away from the OP.

And not a very good one as far as I can see. I’ve been scratching my head after reading every single post you’ve made. What are you even actually on about? More to the point what’s it got to do with the OP, other than that you don’t like the implied criticisms in the OP and would rather change the subject?

Just for starters, and going along with the attempted derail for a moment, even if everything, the universe, all thinking, were deterministic (temporarily assuming that to be the case even though I’m not sure it is) why would that make reasoning unreliable? To put it another way, if (if) the universe were clockwork, why would it not run like clockwork? Reasoning would then just be a feature of that, and could be very reliable indeed.

What it might not be is freely-willed thinking, but that’s a slightly different issue to whether it can be trusted to be reliable. I admit I have no idea how we got into or why we are doing free will at all in this thread, other than that it’s an attempted detour away from the OP.

I agree with the observation that the quote from Haldane contains a non sequitur.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What utter nonsense. You are still sticking with your strawman presuming to declare what atheists think.

And yet you still do not define explicitly what you mean by the phrase, "free will".

Lots of people go through life unaware of negative aspects of their own behavior. It's a medical condition called anosognosia and it's quite real. But it isn't real to the person who has the condition, and further, it's utterly fascinating to observe in an individual so afflicted.

Doctors who first observed and recorded the phenomenon in stroke patients believed patients were simply in denial of their condition and were acting rationally by fighting back. But today we know it is caused by "damage" to the brain. I put "damage' in quotes because it's better to think of it as not actually damage, but simply a condition that we all share to some degree. The "damage" can actually happen, obviously, as it does when a person has a stroke or the brain is injured otherwise.

I bring this up here because it explains a lot of religious behavior. Persons with the condition are likely to have delusions, hear voices, interpret mundane events as being signs from spirits, have super powers, etc.

 

[remez]

Again you are telling me what I think.

NO, I presented a contradiction to “atheistic scripture” teaching in the OP. You objected specifically that Haldane was no “prophet”, and inferred that his teaching could be ignored.
Also…..
Inferring that you understood that contradiction on the table. So this……….

I have no idea what you specifically mean by, 'free will' because you haven't said.

……is your dubious way out.

Unlike you, I don't believe that I can read the minds of others.

Seriously. It does not require mind reading to address a common (Haldane’s quote) contradiction.

And yet you still do not define explicitly what you mean by the phrase, "free will".

You were the one objecting to the common refrain while trying to claim ignorance of the refrain.

But all the same…………here………….

Free will means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused.
Thus……
Our thinking, reasoning are influenced not caused. If our reasoning is purely the by-product of matter (materialism) then there is no room for free thought. All is determined. We all act the way we are bc there is no other way to act. No free will. Matter and physics call all the shots…….materialism…..pure naturalistic explanation…..but explanation infers reason so there are no explanations either. See the problem? See the contradiction?

So I really can’t be telling you what you think…..bc neither one of us really thinks..... if matter only is the paradigm. We had no choice to respond the way we did. But even to say that creates a contradiction.
Here in the context of Haldane…..

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

……mind cannot logically be a mere by-product (caused) of matter (materialism…matter only the OP speculation) bc it would eliminate all reason to suppose our beliefs are true. Thereby all reasoning. THE GREAT CONTRADICTION.
So in the OP…..T.G.G Moogly…..

The existence of everything has to be explained. The existence of my creator being does not have to be explained.

Apart from compartmentalization, are there any other more compelling explanations for how a human brain can be so self contradictory and unaware of same?

I understand natural selection, is this the simplest and most convincing explanation? I guess I'm asking an intellectual question, maybe such a brain simply lacks the neural connections to make such a contradiction obvious. That's not really so mysterious. And if the behavior has been selected for over generations it will be there like any other behavior. Maybe we can call it a passive behavior.

It's probably just this simple but thought to see what others think. It's still a behavior that fascinates me.

……is searching for a purely materialistic explanation. Hence my presenting Haldane’s comments on the matter……pointing to the Great Contradiction.

 

[skepticalbip]

NO, I presented a contradiction to “atheistic scripture” teaching in the OP. You objected specifically that Haldane was no “prophet”, and inferred that his teaching could be ignored.

There is no "atheistic scripture" and Haldane is not worshipped by atheists. In fact, although I am an atheist, I have never read Haldane and don't really give a shit what he thinks, believes, or writes.

Unlike you, I don't believe that I can read the minds of others.

Seriously. It does not require mind reading to address a common (Haldane’s quote) contradiction.

WTF? If you have a problem with Haldane then take it up with him. He does not speak for atheists' thoughts. He only speaks for his thoughts.

And yet you still do not define explicitly what you mean by the phrase, "free will".

You were the one objecting to the common refrain while trying to claim ignorance of the refrain.

But all the same…………here………….

Free will means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused.
Thus……
Our thinking, reasoning are influenced not caused. If our reasoning is purely the by-product of matter (materialism) then there is no room for free thought. All is determined. We all act the way we are bc there is no other way to act. No free will. Matter and physics call all the shots…….materialism…..pure naturalistic explanation…..but explanation infers reason so there are no explanations either. See the problem? See the contradiction?

If that is your definition of 'free will' then I can see that you have a problem with Haldane. But once again, atheists don't worship Haldane and, quite likely, the overwhelming majority of atheists don't agree with him. I happen to agree that "our thinking, reasoning are influenced not caused" and I am certainly an atheist.

Your problem is making an asinine assumption that all atheists think alike (and worship Haldane) which would be as asinine as someone assuming that all religious people believe exactly the same thing (and worship Ernest Angley).

 

[remez]

If that is your definition of 'free will' then I can see that you have a problem with Haldane.

I don’t have a problem with Haldane there. The OP does.

But once again, atheists don't worship Haldane and, quite likely, the overwhelming majority of atheists don't agree with him.

The pedagogy of “scripture” and “prophet” was playful lingo. I’m not inferring that you “worship” Haldane. I’m providing his quote regarding the contradiction of mind having a material only cause, which is the speculation of the OP.
But if you don’t agree with him…..
Then how do you account for the existence of free will?

I happen to agree that "our thinking, reasoning are influenced not caused" and I am certainly an atheist.

Fine….But then how do you account for the existence of free will. Mind…reasoning….thinking….etc. Which is the speculation of the OP.

Your problem is making an asinine assumption that all atheists think alike (and worship Haldane) which would be as asinine as someone assuming that all religious people believe exactly the same thing (and worship Ernest Angley).

Now you are telling me what I think.
I do not think all atheists agree with Haldane.
As a matter of fact I would think most disagree with him.
But…..
If you disagree with him then how do you account for free will?
Is it illusion?
Does it have a material only explanation?
Can it only be explained by natural means only?
Or is….
There another immaterial non-natural explanation?

I’m only asking you to address the overt implications of the glaring contradiction.

I FREELY admit that I don’t know what you think. Let alone can I tell you what you think.

 

[Bomb#20]

Incidentally, Haldane was an idiot. He was a communist, which makes him an idiot all by itself; but more than that, he was a communist who kept defending Lysenko after the rest of Western geneticists had recognized him as a crackpot, and he was a communist who kept defending Stalin after the rest of Western communists had recognized him as a monster. Haldane is deservedly famous because he came up with a spectacularly good one-liner about God and beetles. But he was still an idiot.

 

[remez]

What utter nonsense. You are still sticking with your strawman presuming to declare what atheists think.

And yet you still do not define explicitly what you mean by the phrase, "free will".

Lots of people go through life unaware of negative aspects of their own behavior. It's a medical condition called anosognosia and it's quite real. But it isn't real to the person who has the condition, and further, it's utterly fascinating to observe in an individual so afflicted.

Doctors who first observed and recorded the phenomenon in stroke patients believed patients were simply in denial of their condition and were acting rationally by fighting back. But today we know it is caused by "damage" to the brain. I put "damage' in quotes because it's better to think of it as not actually damage, but simply a condition that we all share to some degree. The "damage" can actually happen, obviously, as it does when a person has a stroke or the brain is injured otherwise.

I bring this up here because it explains a lot of religious behavior. Persons with the condition are likely to have delusions, hear voices, interpret mundane events as being signs from spirits, have super powers, etc.

I thought you better than that. We go back to joedad.

You took the “abaddon approach” of casting useless insults from the third gallery.

I directly addressed you earlier. And you had not the courage of your convictions to directly address me. Instead you cowardly insult my efforts through a third party by false analogy.

I could just as easily throw your diagnosis of anosognosia back in your face. For I have as much evidence as you (none) to infer you are afflicted with such.

 

[remez]

Incidentally, Haldane was an idiot. He was a communist, which makes him an idiot all by itself; but more than that, he was a communist who kept defending Lysenko after the rest of Western geneticists had recognized him as a crackpot, and he was a communist who kept defending Stalin after the rest of Western communists had recognized him as a monster. Haldane is deservedly famous because he came up with a spectacularly good one-liner about God and beetles. But he was still an idiot.

Ad hominem.

 

[bilby]

Full quote.....

So..........


Haldane’s point is from a naturistic viewpoint (foundational to atheism) there is no thinking. He simply had to say that. You had to disagree with him. Christians have to believe what they believe. That’s the way naturalism works….there is no freewill, thinking or choice. It is all but illusion bc all is naturally deterministic.

If that is not the way naturalism works then please provide a reasonable paradigm that can naturally account for freewill.

Thus the existence of freewill can be more reasonably explained by theism. Not in the straw man representations you purported earlier, but in the understanding that we are made in the image of the creator. By that I mean he have mind, emotion and freewill.

Your worldview can not account for the existence of freewill. Theism has always accounted for it. Which worldview therefore better accounts for freewill, and by obvious extension, thinking?

He remains guilty of a massive non-sequitur.

You have not made your case for that. You are just assuming thinking exists without need for an explanation of its existence.

This is not a gotg reasoning. This is a methodological reductionism of materialisms dead end. It cannot and never will reasonably account for the existence of freewill materially and by extension naturally. Its origin must be supernatural.

While you appear to have opted to hide behind an appeal to authority instead.

I’m not hiding behind anything.

I’m just throwing the scripture of your materialism back at you to reveal an overt contradiction. Just like you folks do with the Bible. Your charge of fallacy missed the target.

Back to post 33 to further my contention…….

Whether or not "I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true" is entirely unrelated to whether or not "my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain".

How is it unrelated? If your mental processes (freethought) are deterministic then how do you have any freedom in materialism to conclude (think) they are true?

You’re espousing that free thinking is deterministic.
How can you unpack that contradiction?

Which….was my point.
And to support my point you added (also from post 33)…..

Do you think that if the output of a CPU is determined wholly by the motion of electrons in the chip you have no reason to suppose that the output is correct? If so, you have no way to tell whether I even wrote this, so you would be crazy to respond to it.

I don’t think that at all, I’m theistic. That is the logical product of atheistic thinking. Which again was my point. Hence why I claimed that you seemingly supported my reasoning.

That you imagine I have a "scripture of materialism" that I must hold in high regard despite its content just demonstrates that you are completely incapable of grasping that others are not bound by the limitations of thought that lead you to conclude that freedom of will both unquestionably exists, and requires a supernatural element in order to fo so.

You are fractally wrong; At every level, your assumptions are incorrect.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue to attempt to reason with you.

 

[ruby sparks]

NO, I presented a contradiction to “atheistic scripture” teaching in the OP. You objected specifically that Haldane was no “prophet”, and inferred that his teaching could be ignored.
Also…..
Inferring that you understood that contradiction on the table. So this……….


……is your dubious way out.

Unlike you, I don't believe that I can read the minds of others.

Seriously. It does not require mind reading to address a common (Haldane’s quote) contradiction.

And yet you still do not define explicitly what you mean by the phrase, "free will".

You were the one objecting to the common refrain while trying to claim ignorance of the refrain.

But all the same…………here………….

Free will means uncaused. Man has free will, and his decisions are influenced, but not caused.
Thus……
Our thinking, reasoning are influenced not caused. If our reasoning is purely the by-product of matter (materialism) then there is no room for free thought. All is determined. We all act the way we are bc there is no other way to act. No free will. Matter and physics call all the shots…….materialism…..pure naturalistic explanation…..but explanation infers reason so there are no explanations either. See the problem? See the contradiction?

So I really can’t be telling you what you think…..bc neither one of us really thinks..... if matter only is the paradigm. We had no choice to respond the way we did. But even to say that creates a contradiction.
Here in the context of Haldane…..

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

……mind cannot logically be a mere by-product (caused) of matter (materialism…matter only the OP speculation) bc it would eliminate all reason to suppose our beliefs are true. Thereby all reasoning. THE GREAT CONTRADICTION.
So in the OP…..T.G.G Moogly…..

The existence of everything has to be explained. The existence of my creator being does not have to be explained.

Apart from compartmentalization, are there any other more compelling explanations for how a human brain can be so self contradictory and unaware of same?

I understand natural selection, is this the simplest and most convincing explanation? I guess I'm asking an intellectual question, maybe such a brain simply lacks the neural connections to make such a contradiction obvious. That's not really so mysterious. And if the behavior has been selected for over generations it will be there like any other behavior. Maybe we can call it a passive behavior.

It's probably just this simple but thought to see what others think. It's still a behavior that fascinates me.

……is searching for a purely materialistic explanation. Hence my presenting Haldane’s comments on the matter……pointing to the Great Contradiction.

Exactly where is it that you think what Haldane said involves a contradiction? He doesn’t appear to be making the point that you are for starters.

In any case, the thing YOU seem to be taking about, that there can’t be free will in a materialistic universe, but there is, is not a contradiction, because it relies on your bald assertion that we have free will.

It’s no more a contradiction than saying angels and ghosts can’t exist in a materialist universe and yet they do. That’s not a contradiction unless angels and ghosts actually exist.