Computer \"reads\" memories... (Humans)

by dhw, Sunday, March 28, 2010, 17:36 (5353 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Okay, fine, say we agree that the universe had to be designed. What then do we do with this agreement? Maybe David disagrees, but an explanation must really DO something.-Obviously I can't answer for David, but there are a few interesting ramifications to this argument. Some people feel that "truth" is an end in itself. Humans get restless when there are mysteries, and we feel better when we solve them. So if someone is satisfied that the mystery of life's origin can be explained by chance, or by design, it's one less niggle. You have acknowledged that you can't really do anything with "chance" either. No, of course you can't. You're dealing with one question, and one answer. That's the end of the story. And that's why atheist materialism is the simplest of all explanations, even though it depends on the unprovable hypothesis that life and the mechanisms of evolution came about by accident. -However, if your answer is design, it opens up vast new avenues of thought, all of which can be subsumed under the one question: what is the nature of the designer? I won't go into the rest, because it constitutes theology ... the "study of divine things", which is almost a contradiction in terms if you follow the line of thought that proclaims God is unknowable! But that's what the explanation "does". In David's case (sorry, David, only I need to refer to you as our only committed theist), it leads to panentheism. -I enumerated the strengths and the weaknesses of the two cases, and you wrote: "this clearly demonstrates that you don't feel either has enough justification", so you see no difference between us. The only difference, which is very minor, is that you can't understand why David firmly believes in a designer (though I don't recall you expressing the same incomprehension towards George's firm belief in chance and the natural laws). I can understand both beliefs. You're quite right that I can't embrace either of them, because I don't accept their weighting of the evidence, but that's the nature of belief, non-belief and disbelief: one's personal weighting of the evidence. The two faiths don't have enough justification for ME, but I won't challenge David or George on the grounds that their beliefs don't "do" anything.