Every so often I hear someone say or make a comment alleging that theism and the various forms of it throughout the ages was man’s first attempts at explaining how the natural world came into being. This of course is a mistake and a common one for this day and age, for theism rarely if ever offers a “how” at all. In fact if the “how” forever remains a mystery theism suffers nothing and remains intact and unmoved. It seems to me obvious therefore the genesis and cause of theism is far removed from an attempt of any kind in explaining “how” the universe, the world, or anything else formed and processed into being. The more and more I think about it the more it is clear to me that the genesis and cause of theism has more to do with the “why” than the “how”, although the “why” is not the answer in an of itself. The “how” is a logical question that searches for steps that we have either experienced or observed. The “why” is an emotional question that searches for an emotional end such as, “it is hungry” or “because such and such makes it feel good”. But neither “how” nor “why” are by themselves the answer. I believe the answer can only be found in the word “meaning” which is a kind of blend between “how” and “why”. When we say “meaning” we mean conscious effort or conscious communication for when something is done without conscious effort we say “no one meant to do it”. It is this sense or this feeling that we have that all we see around us must “mean” something. This search and thirst for “meaning” is emotional and is strong. Since it does not have to be taught and is strong enough in a human being to drown out other emotional needs one can only conclude that it is an instinct. Now this is where it gets interesting for, as far as I know, there is no instinct that any creature has for something that does not exist. We have an instinct for food, sex, safety, parental affection and all these exist in abundance. So one can only conclude that this instinctual thirst for meaning, which requires conscious effort or communication, must exist, especially when this instinctual thirst, for many people, becomes so strong that they are willing to neglect or even deny the other powerful instincts such as food, sex, and even self preservation. Knowing this is true and knowing man has deeply felt this instinct for as long as man has been man, one can only conclude that this meaning does indeed exist and, like other instinctual ends, it exists in abundance. This is the primary cause of theism and is also the reason the “how”, that science so adequately answers, does little to quench or even address the instinct properly.
I once heard someone say that, “We are born atheists because we need to be taught about God. We are not born with this knowledge,” but I think this idea is missing something very basic. We are not born knowing what food is but when we come in contact with food something inside us says “yesss.” We are not born knowing what sex is but our instincts will drive us to figure it out. We are not born knowing we need the affection of our parents or even understanding what daddy and mommy are but when we receive affection we instinctively know it is something we need. The same can be said about God. No we are born not knowing God but when we come in contact with the idea and the writing of certain scriptures something inside us says “yesss…this is what I have been thirsting for.” After that we cling to these spiritual springs that we instinctually thirst for and we defend the springs as zealously as one defends a food source that is being threatened. If science or the “how” fed this instinct or quenched the thirst of it then people might be inclined to trade up as they did when Christianity replaced paganism but science and the “how” doesn’t even address the subject of “meaning” at all. Therefore the answer to the idea that theism was mans first scientific attempt to explain “how” the things around him formed and came into being is “FALSE”.
I once heard someone say that, “We are born atheists because we need to be taught about God. We are not born with this knowledge,” but I think this idea is missing something very basic. We are not born knowing what food is but when we come in contact with food something inside us says “yesss.” We are not born knowing what sex is but our instincts will drive us to figure it out. We are not born knowing we need the affection of our parents or even understanding what daddy and mommy are but when we receive affection we instinctively know it is something we need. The same can be said about God. No we are born not knowing God but when we come in contact with the idea and the writing of certain scriptures something inside us says “yesss…this is what I have been thirsting for.” After that we cling to these spiritual springs that we instinctually thirst for and we defend the springs as zealously as one defends a food source that is being threatened. If science or the “how” fed this instinct or quenched the thirst of it then people might be inclined to trade up as they did when Christianity replaced paganism but science and the “how” doesn’t even address the subject of “meaning” at all. Therefore the answer to the idea that theism was mans first scientific attempt to explain “how” the things around him formed and came into being is “FALSE”.
