I recently read Geoffrey Miller's wonderful Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behaviour and ever since I find it impossible not to see 'displaying' wherever I look. When you buy a not very practical car that will impress others you are displaying. When you suddenly take an interest in South African politics because it's all the rage and you want to appear serious and committed you are displaying. And I suspect that displaying was what David Eagleman was up to here. He must have thought he was on to a winner. How could taking a stand against those arrogant, know-it-all atheists not go down well with pretty much everyone? And coming from an unbelieving intellectual he must have felt like Robin Hood. He could have sided with the nasty sheriff of Nottingham, Richard Dawkins, but instead he chose to valiantly defend the poor downtrodden believers. How great he must have felt about himself! You can almost hear the smugness in his voice during his presentation.

Unfortunately for him, Sam Harris was able to take apart this particular argument/display in such a way that it becomes very clear what Eagleman is up to. No wonder he hasn't replied. What could he possibly say? Maybe he could raise his hands and admit, "Well, I guess that backfired. I wanted to make myself look good by showing up Sam Harris et al. I even thought I had invented a new position, 'Possibilianism', but it turns out that this new position is really just Atheism with a dash of self-infatuation".