"in the end...i'd much rather give myself space to be surprised, by both God and nature."
Rather than assume that it all works out deterministically? Yeah, i do. The Evangelically Atheist often push towards this assumption, that if it involves matter, that there's nothing special going on, and that the human brain is a computer that deterministically produces output systematically obtained from input. (The regular Evangelic often says a very similar thing about history...that God's dominion is inexorably expressed in history and is working towards a preordained moment for the second coming. i just find the parallel interesting...)
I'd much rather step back from that, and assume for the time being that i'm going to be surprised. Also, given the current facts at hand...i see absolutely no rational basis for in insistance that anything is "just" an chemical reaction when it comes to the brain. It's like saying the Saturn V is "just" a way of burning things. When i first see a Saturn V, i don't know it can send something to the moon. I look around the outside, see some vague schematics...i might guess that, but i'm sure as hell going to guess that it does *something* important.
A person can try to assume that things are small, definite, deterministic, and limited. Or they can assume otherwise...
I know what i choose...i've been trying to talk about why that is.
PS. That being surprised by nature part? That was a reference to the study of the continuing work of science.
Quote:
|
I could tell you that I made the first mobile phone in my garage, and to a lot of you that would be less plausible than the existence of a universe-wide, all seeing, all-knowing invisible father figure who is conspicuous by his absence in everyday life, until we die.
|
This analogy is not supposed to make you think "big grandfather in the sky." This analogy is one way of explaining how people move past that idea, and still claim a belief in God.