Recognizing that there likely exist things beyond human comprehension—beyond our ability to even know what we’re missing—doesn’t provide free license to believe in anything whatsoever. I have a chance to address this in detail in the book, but the length and format of spoken presentations limits what I can cover.
As humans, we have the ability to reason, and the use of reason is at the core of what we’ve achieved as a species. We can’t throw it out just because there may exist things we don’t have the ability to reason about. When a listener suggests that she now feels better able to defend her belief in astrology, I politely tell her no. Jumping to such conclusions is the bad side of the Beyond Comprehension conjecture.
The good side—apart from the joy of contemplating the many paradoxes we’re confronted with—is recognizing where we may be overstepping our cognitive limitations in the name of science. For example, it’s routinely argued by philosophers and neurobiologists that human free will doesn’t exist—the universe is deterministic and that’s it. Yet, we don’t understand why a relatively small collection of molecules—more than 85 percent of which are water and carbon—can give rise to human consciousness in the first place. That should be a clear warning sign that we need to be careful when making sweeping statements about free will.