The psychological problem we seem to have with the deterministic model of existence, which is just a way of saying the unification of human experience with all other laws of existence, is analogous to the question of God.
One of the most central yet rarely identified mysteries inherent in the conflict between religion and atheism as competing worldviews is why it should be that people are so troubled by variant explanations for the same thing.
After all, one is definitely wrong, and one at most can be true. (Or all can be wrong.) But they are all only accounts. The thing, and our experience of it, remain constant. Neither account can take anything away from the other’s experience of the world.
Each may succeed or fail to describe the universe exactly as it appears to the other, but such is their definite aim. So if both theories claim to end in exactly the same universe, why the passion?
Atheistic Darwinism and theism are different answers to the same riddle: how to account for the sensations of purpose and meaning.
What does Darwinism lack that God possesses? How do they differ? Why is Darwinism not simply another name for God, both synonyms for ‘the thing that makes existence work’?
It is, of course, the idea of personality.
Darwinism is mechanistic, unthinking, a process. God is a being who decides to do things and does them.
So the difference is really only in the small print: religion accounts for (the fact of) purpose and meaning, Darwinism accounts for (the illusion of) purpose and meaning.
But the purpose and meaning we experience is unchanged whichever you believe.
The only route out of this impasse that I can see, whereby mechanism and true unpredictability can be reconciled, comes at the cost of accepting an even more unsettling notion: the abandonment of time as a concept.