Joe Carter, ponders some of the atheistic truth claims floated about in the marketplace of ideas. Many of these claims, like emergent properties, amount to hand waving. As you drill down for details and specifics, you find air.
I find belief number three particularly intriguing.
3. Our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms like natural selection, working on sources of genetic variation such as random genetic mutation, yet are reliable for distinguishing between truth and false aspects of reality, such as the claim that our cognitive faculties have resulted from blind mechanisms.
This raises a cogent point. Is it reasonable to assume that rationality can arise from chaos and chance? If so, why? If by some magic it did, why should we trust our cognitive faculties? Wouldn't it be reasonable to just assume that our minds were just products of evolutionary determinism ... and therefore programmed to think in a certain way? Free will would be an illusion. Truth would be an mirage, because our minds would be programmed to accept truth claims based on genetic programming rather than on correspondence to reality.
There are no satisfying answers to these questions from a naturalistic framework. The only response I ever get when raising these tough questions are questions thrown back at me about the incomprehensibility of God. In other words, there are no answers; just debate tactics.
When you get down to the meat and potatoes of a worldview, we all make assumptions whether we like to admit it or not. At the end of the day, our worldviews are ultimately based on ... faith trust.