我在用製錶人證明基督教的神存在的方法得到一個政治不正確的想法,以為相信基督教一般較無神論者愚蠢,特別是當他們製錶人的比擬而證明有神時,因為他們看到地球彷彿一切都是為人類而預備,而動物看來沒有主動創造自己的生活環境的能力,所以得出地球的一切都必然需要另一位比人更大能力的創造者產生出來,而牠必然就是基督教所說的神了。何解他們忘記了是自己在思考,而最大的前提是人類已經存在呢?
所謂無神論者教聰明也就只在這一點,當他們思考同一問題時,他們看穿了人的思考如人的眼睛,表面上看來很中立公正,事實卻不然,眼睛一看不到眼睫毛、血管,二不知自己的眼界既有限,而且一定是由自己的角度去看;同理,當人思考時,人是用思考的器官透過心理的結構而去思考分析問題,在認知心理學中是由下(具體)而上(抽象)的過程而不是由上而下,當然是有所偏頗,人當然只會從人的角度去思考,因為人是創造者,所以自然傾向把一切事物「人類中心化」, 把大自然的一切看成是人工而成,彷彿宇宙萬物都是為人度身訂做,而忘記坐在圓桌旁誰都以為自己在人中心。如此的思考是看不到自己視角的局限,凡自己看到的都彷彿是宇宙的全相/全局,是無知卻當自己是全知,既然自己在心理世界中是全知/全能/無惡的,所以自然而然把是種心態投射在外來之物,其中一位正基督教的神。
Surely, one of the familiar proof of the existence of Christian God is the Watchmaker's argument, namely when we look at the surrounding then any layperson should realize it must be a product of divine intelligence.
Evidently it has skipped one step:
Since human being is a biological entity, therefore we would infer with anthropocentric basis. We would identify 'evidence of God's work' using same criteria as we identify the product of human labor, which subtly equating human with Christian God(since both are active in shaping the environment.) Just like when we look out from our eye and forgot the eyesight of us is bounded by the structure and mechanism of the components of the eye; the proponent of this line of argument has forgotten we are thinking with a built-in bias: Our own existence. We are thinking from the structures of our brain using mechanisms of our mind. Much like eyelid bound our eyesight but we tend to think what we see is the whole world without boundary, when we are thinking we assume that our thinking is as unbounded as our eyesight. We naturally and easily forgot there is a framework which our thinking take place. The realization of this boundary and framework of our thinking, i.e. when we are thinking we know it is 'we as human being' are thinking. So we are more than ready to attribute any human characteristic to the natural world, much like we characterize storm with human emotion like angry, furor, rages.
I believe the realization of the boundary of one's thought is an remarkable intellectual achievement. I think it could be use as a reliable measurement of intelligence, and as a sign of intellectual maturity. What I am arriving at is a politically incorrect notion that Atheist are more intelligent than religious.