S/he is arguing, I think, (1) that if it were religious people seeing religious images, rather than scientific people seeing scientific images, then everyone wo

S/he is arguing, I think, (1) that if it were religious people seeing religious images, rather than scientific people seeing scientific images, then everyone would just say "these people are crazy"; (2) that what leads some people to see brain parts in religious artwork is "fundamentalist atheism", and (3) that there's some sort of equivalence between "actual human brains could have arisen by a natural process taking billions of years and a whole planet full of living things" and "an image of a brain in an artwork, even if accurate, could be mere coincidence", on the grounds that both of them can be caricatured as "brains could arise by chance". I think #1 is probably true, #2 is idiotic, and #3 is idiotic. (Though I'd agree that believers in evolution -- and believers in Christian creationism, and believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and everyone else -- should probably think that these alleged brain pictures in the Sistine Chapel could just be coincidence.)