In the beginning was the herd ... :fire:

In the beginning was the herd ... :fire: — 180 Proof

In the beginning was the nerd... :nerd:

Apologies to Daniel but I couldn't resist. Bad of me, I know :yikes:

There must have been this overwhelmimg need in man, right from the "beginning" — Daniel C

Not sure that it would be right from the 'beginning'...whenever that was...

The only expanation for this phenomenon which makes sense to me is a psychological one. — Daniel C

Religion as, among other things, institutional psychology. That's my (more-or-less Christian, here) take. And if only churches would recognize it and preach what good sense they might contain, not as counseling psych., but as conveyors of collective wisdom that's seemed mostly good after even three-odd thousand years, and without the super-natural aspects but in recognition of the value as value, and why, and got from what source, possibly even in synthesis with other religions, then, in my opinion, the world could be a much better place.

In the beginning man created "God". As far as ancient historians can go back into history they find indications of man being "religious" in some way or another. The only expanation for this phenomenon which makes sense to me is a psychological one. There must have been this overwhelmimg need in man, right from the "beginning" to find a Superior / Transcendental / Cosmic Being to enable him/her to bear the pain / suffering of being alive and to give meaning to their lives and also a sense of morality. Without finding such a Being the "inner chaos of human experience" would have destroyed everything with no survivors left to give continuity to the human race. Therefore, human beings created the concept of "God" which eventually led to many different conceptions of this concept which is today still in a process of evolution. — Daniel C

There is another possibility, of course, i.e. that God exists. It is at least worth a mention. We don't have to get into a discussion on the existence of God. There are dozens, hundreds of them here on the forum with new ones starting all the time.

Here's a quote from the Tao Te Ching that I think is relevant to your position:

The Tao ...is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities. It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.

The Tao is what exists as an undivided whole. People break it up into the 10,000 things, which are the objects and phenomena which make up the reality we live in. God is one of the 10,000 things.

And there is yet another way of thinking about God which I find satisfying and which is consistent with the Tao Te Ching but separate from your psychological explanation. If there is no objective reality, which is a reputable and defensible metaphysical position, then what we call "reality" is a fundamentally human invention. The religious impulse is just recognition of this living nature of our world.

"The Tao is what exists as an undivided whole. People break it up into the 10,000 things..."

Through what agency? If, for example, I am undivided and whole, then who breaks me up into the people who further breaks me up into the 10,000 things?

I've been saying that Man created god for years.

I count our 'theogenesis" as one of our more notable cultural achievements. "God" is real in that sense. The forgotten, no-longer-named gods aren't real anymore. Once they were.

There is another possibility, of course, i.e. that God exists. It is at least worth a mention. — T Clark

Sure, and until and unless He manifests himself in some unambiguous and clear way, the possibility is without significance, importance, or meaning, except possibly as a regulative or instructive idea.

I think God created man in his own image, gave man free will and after seeing how bad man can be became so ashamed, even afraid, and simply ran away, hopefully, to a better place, leaving vague inconclusive clues of what he'd hoped we could've and should've been.

The only expanation for this phenomenon which makes sense to me is a psychological one — Daniel C

That explains a lot. It’s very much like the kind of thing a patient, non-religious youth says to an elder Christian: ‘I understand your need for a father figure, but can’t you see it’s just a projection?’

Most of the atheism chat on the Internet is very uninformed about what exactly is being negated. As, I think, Noam Chomsky said, ‘I’ll tell you if I’m an atheist if you tell me what it is I’m supposed not to believe in.’

What this chatter usually assumes however is that all of the accounts in religious texts are likewise projections, illusions or wishful thinking. And surely in a mechanised modern culture such as ours it must seem like that. But I don’t believe so - it think there records of genuine epiphanies, actual ‘revelations’, such that if anyone were exposed to such visions then they likewise would be compelled to accept their veracity. Not everything in sacred texts is true, but that doesn’t mean that it’s all fallacious, either. Otherwise it would make it the mother of all conspiracies.

Does that make me ‘a believer’? I hope not, I try to resist being a believer. But I am someone with a religious or at least spiritual kind of temperament. And besides, there are many points on the spectrum other than simply believer or atheist - one can remain intellectually agnostic but still open to the spiritual.

Hi Daniel C,

According to your post,

“In the beginning man created "God". As far as ancient historians can go back into history they find indications of man being "religious" in some way or another. The only expanation for this phenomenon which makes sense to me is a psychological one. There must have been this overwhelmimg need in man, right from the "beginning" to find a Superior / Transcendental / Cosmic Being to enable him/her to bear the pain / suffering of being alive and to give meaning to their lives and also a sense of morality. Without finding such a Being the "inner chaos of human experience" would have destroyed everything with no survivors left to give continuity to the human race. Therefore, human beings created the concept of "God" which eventually led to many different conceptions of this concept which is today still in a process of evolution.” - Daniel C

it seems like your argument works out like this:

(1) If a concept related to psychological needs is ubiquitous and fundamentally diverse, then it cannot be objectively true.
(2) Humans have historically exhibited religious activity, and exhibit a psychological need to cope with questions of suffering, meaning, and morality
(3) Therefore, God is a construct of the imagination. (1,2, MP)

While I agree with you that we are faced with significant and unavoidable questions related to purpose, suffering, and morality, and that history provides us with consistent examples of religious expression, I do not think that your conclusion (3) follows based on premise (1).

The conclusion that God is a construct does not follow based on the observances of (2), and must be supported by a premise such as (1); which seems to me to be an accurate articulation of your argument.

Just because religion is a phenomenon that can be traced throughout history, and that it seems to satisfy a series of existential questions innate to the human condition does not immediately mean that it is a false construct.

For, there are many similar phenomena that, based on the criteria of (1), serve to promote the reality of a concept.

Take the concept of morality, for example. The concept of good and evil / right and wrong has been intrinsic throughout human history, and unique and diverse throughout time and cultural context.

One might argue that these very observances are cause to refute the existence of morality - that it is also a result of pragmatism or psychological need.

However, it seems apparent that the similarities within this common sense of morality actually exceed cultural differences - at least in a normative sense.

What I mean is, loyalty, generosity, altruism, kindness, respect, etc. all seem to be acknowledged as good things across cultural divides and historical eras. Likewise, things like theft, insolence, avarice, and adultery are seen as bad.

This human tendency toward morality is often cited as evidence for the existence of an objective morality, not against it. Despite differences in expression, it is the nature of the expression itself that causes many to assert its objective reality.

Opponents of this view who take a subjective approach fall into an awkward problem of self-defeat. For example, it becomes impossible for those with a subjective view of morality to renounce such acts as genocide, infanticide, and racism as objectively wrong.

Similarly, the fact that religion has existed throughout history and satisfies intrinsic psychological proclivities can actually serve to corroborate theism.
Further, though religions do take many forms, they are all fundamental acknowledgements of metaphysical presuppositions about purpose, morality, meaning, and destiny.
This is a dichotomy between atheism (God is a human construct) and any metaphysical or spiritual explanation.

Therefore, I would object to your premise (1) with the following:

(1) If a concept related to psychological needs is ubiquitous and fundamentally similar, then it has a high probability of objective truth.
(2) Humans have historically exhibited religious activity, and exhibit a psychological need to cope with questions of suffering, meaning, and morality
(3) Therefore, theism is a reasonable explanation. (1,2, MP)

The only expanation for this phenomenon which makes sense to me is a psychological one. — Daniel C

"Fitra" or "fitrah" (Arabic: فطرة‎; ALA-LC: fiṭrah), is the state of purity and innocence Muslims believe all humans to be born with. Fitra is an Arabic word that is usually translated as “original disposition,” “natural constitution,” or “innate nature.” According to Islamic theology, human beings are born with an innate inclination of tawhid (Oneness), which is encapsulated in the fitra along with compassion, intelligence, ihsan and all other attributes that embody the concept of humanity.

I'm not sure this is relevant to the topic, but I always thought that god himself could never know if another god created him ... so even god himself would need to be careful about his actions. He could be judged by a higher power someday. And that other god would be in the same exact position. I'm not sure what it means in philosophical terms. But there's a kind of "Panopticon" paradox right there. Where god himself would need to fear the consequences of his actions, in case "mega-huge brother" is watching.

Sure, and until and unless He manifests himself in some unambiguous and clear way, the possibility is without significance, importance, or meaning, except possibly as a regulative or instructive idea. — tim wood

I disagree with your statement, but as I said in my recent post, I don't think this is the thread to have this discussion. I have no problem with assuming that there is no God, but I thought @Daniel C was a bit presumptuous in how he phrased his OP, as if it were self-evident. I realize this is off-topic. There's no need to distract from the OP any more.

Through what agency? If, for example, I am undivided and whole, then who breaks me up into the people who further breaks me up into the 10,000 things? — Trinity Stooge

It's not that you are undivided, it's that everything is undivided. There is only one essence, e.g. the Tao. Other philosophers call it something else. Many philosophers don't include it in their understanding of reality. The agent of the spit into the 10,000 things is processing by the human mind.

To be clear, this is a metaphysical view. It's not true or false, it is useful or not. I think it is a very fruitful way of looking at things.

If a concept related to psychological needs is ubiquitous and fundamentally similar, then it has a high probability of objective truth. — CS Stewart

:clap:

There's a writer called Andrew Newberg whose book The Spiritual Brain is very much about this kind of idea.

It's not that you are undivided, it's that everything is undivided. — T Clark

Sorry, but I've just peeled a mandarin. And it is indeed divided. In fact almost every sensible object is divisible into parts, some of them, like mandarins, into sub-parts. So whatever the sentiment you're wanting to express here, it regrettably doesn't conform with the testimony of sense.

'Fitra' is an Arabic word that is usually translated as “original disposition,” “natural constitution,” or “innate nature.” — alcontali

By way of comparison:

According to Mahāyāna Buddhists, buddha nature is the inherent nature that exists in all beings. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, enlightenment is a process of uncovering this inherent nature … The Buddha nature identical with transcendental reality and is unity of the Buddha with everything that exists. — Wikipedia

It's not that you are undivided, it's that everything is undivided. — T Clark


Sorry, but I've just peeled a mandarin. And it is indeed divided. In fact almost every sensible object is divisible into parts, some of them, like mandarins, into sub-parts. So whatever the sentiment you're wanting to express here, it regrettably doesn't conform with the testimony of sense. — Wayfarer

What a facetious trivialising of what was a very thoughtful point. Your personal incredulity does not constitute an argument. What lends you the arrogance to think that whatever makes sense to you is what sense itself is constituted of?

It's not that you are undivided, it's that everything is undivided. — T Clark
Sorry, but I've just peeled a mandarin. And it is indeed divided. In fact almost every sensible object is divisible into parts, some of them, like mandarins, into sub-parts. So whatever the sentiment you're wanting to express here, it regrettably doesn't conform with the testimony of sense.
— Wayfarer

What a facetious trivialising of what was a very thoughtful point. Your personal incredulity does not constitute an argument. What lends you the arrogance to think that whatever makes sense to you is what sense itself is constituted of? — Isaac

@Wayfarer, @Isaac, and @T. Clark, the three of you seem to be divided on the subject of unity. This actually unifies the three of you into a community of participants of a debate.

Except that there CAN'T be three of you, according to the Tao Unified Cosmos theory.

Your personal incredulity does not constitute an argument — Isaac

Nor do your ad homs. T. Clark said, I quote, ‘everything is undivided’. Granted, this might amount to a profound philosophical insight but I’m simply pointing out that empirically, this is not so, that on the level of phenomena, things are indeed divided and divisible.

(I think @Isaac was using irony... I beleive s/he meant to say, "You mustn't believe your eyes when they contradict theory.")

(Hint: if you have to explain irony, then it's failed. In that respect, it's like humour.)

(That is true, too.)

@Wayfarer this reminds me of an old Jewish joke.

Green goes to the rabbi with Black, to get justice done. "Black borrowed my hat and never returned it. He must pay me for the hat." The rabbi says, "That's right." Then Black says, "Yeah, but Green borrowed five bucks from me last week, and he never paid me back. So I don't have to pay him for the hat." The rabbi thinks for a second, and says, "You're right!" Then Green pipes up, "But rabbi! We can't both be right!" The rabbi looks at him in surprise, and says, "You're right!"

I think God created man in his own image, gave man free will and after seeing how bad man can be became so ashamed, even afraid, and simply ran away, hopefully, to a better place, leaving vague inconclusive clues of what he'd hoped we could've and should've been. — TheMadFool

I like that. I imagine God feeling severely depressed about how wrong the creation of humankind went, realizing the incalculable amount of unnecessary (in addition to the necessary suffering) suffering that humans have inflicted on each other and the rest of the species. And in spite of (or maybe because of) the free will clause, God still feels profound guilt in addition to the depression for inflicting such a fucked up species on the world. If it ever comes out of the depression and guilt, perhaps it will try something more proactive than the Flood, which didn't really change anything.

Sorry, but I've just peeled a mandarin. And it is indeed divided. In fact almost every sensible object is divisible into parts, some of them, like mandarins, into sub-parts. So whatever the sentiment you're wanting to express here, it regrettably doesn't conform with the testimony of sense. — Wayfarer

I'm surprised. I always think of you as someone experienced in eastern philosophies. Certainly more experienced than I am. Maybe you have a different understanding of the ground of being, Tao, reality, existence, or being than I do.

Perhaps the issue that I've started to discuss here should not be approached by attempting to proof or disproof "God's existence". We all know the arguments for and against and it never leads to any real insight. My view is to start with the "condition" of man and making an attempt to develop this along existential lines. This "condition" I'm referring to, needs no proof, but instead only to be pointed out / indicated: it is either clear to you when pointed out, or, if you are lucky, never to be the case for you. Starting with Camus, I think, will be appropriate: on the one hand, there is man with all needs: from his basic physical needs for pure survival to his spiritual need for intrinsic meaning in life. On the other hand we find the "world" in which man has to live: a universe which is "cold" and completely indifferent towards these needs of man. This situations constitutes, what Camus calls, "absurdity". We have different options to react to this. For Camus it can be suicide - either literally or philosophically - or accept this as a challenge to go forth and create the meaning ourselves that we need to live meaningfully. If you read his "Myth of Sisyphus" it will give you a better idea of his views on this issue. Then, there is Kierkegaard who with his "leap of faith" turns to the Christian God in his attempt to overcome this fundamentally absurd condition of man. For Sartre with his distinction between the "for-itself" and the "in-itself", essence is preceded by existence, meaning that we already are before we are anything specific placing us in a position to continue choosing what we are to become while at the same time being reduced to nothingness, because in my being-conscious-of- whatever thing, I am also conscious of my not-being-that. However, for Sartre, we are in being always confronted by choices, "doomed" to freedom - there is never any possibility of escaping it, and this is the cause of our experiencing life as filled by "anguish". The last example is Heidegger. Let's focus briefly on his view of the nature of our fundamental existence: being "thrown" into existence, because we have no choice in wanting to be born / not to be born, we are "nullified", because we cannot have to bear any responsibility for anything we do / not do in our lives. This "nullification" goes even further, because we have to face the inevitable possibility of our own death / mortality, being our ultimate possibility because, in the realization of this possibility all other possibilities for us are forever cancelled / nullified. This ultimate possibility is faced by us with dread (Angst), because we experience it with "discomfort" of an extreme nature. We have no other choice, but having to face all of this!
With the exception of Kierkegaard, with his "leap of faith", which I view as an example of "creating God", all the other philosophers point out different ways in which we can "handle" our fundamental condition. One thing that all these "different ways" have in common, is they are hard / tough ways to face what we have to face - indeed very hard / tough! If this is the case, doesn't it make it so much more likely / probable than man will choose in favour of "God"? It has this one big advantage that in being able to create Him in the way want to, we can create Him in such a way that our existence can be meaningful in a very fundamental sense?

or....

what if the soul was a being that belonged to a larger group like say, a changing (for the visuals). We are not born but rather find ourselves in these bodies, vehicles if you will. It's all we get for the duration. We are hear for a task. that task is simply to learn about life in this form and experience it. Additionally we are to safeguard all we see and help each other become better versions of ourselves. We have all said it and maybe even taught our children they need only do better than there parents and teach their kids the same. Its something I've heard parents say. And what if, as with energy which can neither created nor destroyed entirely. Life as we said it, heard it and read about for the history of mankind . Perhaps we all simply have an innate understanding of all these things but the unique trait of mankind to be born in need of education is nothing more than a mechanism to ensure we don't repeat our mistakes. Unfortunately it takes use much longer than likely hoped to learn some lessons. Now before you brand me a crackpot I'm simply arguing the what if. Consider why it couldn't be true. While you are doing that consider what we know about blackholes and dark energy. Such opposites it almost seems like a blackhole is nothing more than the garbage disposal of the cosmos. When things get sucked in they are stripped of any form of light thus being born into the area of space filled with dark matter that we can't yet see into. I'm wrong I'm sure but think about it. What can't it be true. What one fact makes it impossible? Myself I enjoy the possibilities but in the end we will all get the answers though I have to wonder, if this whole akashic field isn't as real as any fable based in some truth how is it any crazier than harvard engaging in construction on the premise of an unseen ether. Take leaps folks and disporve things before you simply disagree. so again...ultimately religion came to explain this pull to something we couldn't put our fingers on yet knew it was part of something bigger and as you'll notice most faiths are somehow tied to a creation story. We humans do love having our past and ansestors accounted for. They are wonderful stories that never seem to include the atrocities committed in their name. all of them. ironically they are or most I guess propose a core of common beliefs. It does make one question if there was a tower of babell and something did happen there resulting in the creation of languages then basically every one believes the same things as they wonder off to their respective corners of the globe. After which the names and stories changed somewhat and the dictates of each faith changed with the generations and know they fight with each other all descendants of friends and neighbors who could no longer communicate properly. are you a driver or the vehicle I wonder?

I always think of you as someone experienced in eastern philosophies. Certainly more experienced than I am. Maybe you have a different understanding of the ground of being, Tao, reality, existence, or being than I do. — T Clark

The idea of ‘the undivided’ is, you could say, a cipher for ‘the One’ - the philosophical conception of the source or ground of being. The goal of philosophy is to ‘return to the One’, so to speak. But day to day, we’re confronted by the reality of division and conflict - that’s what the reality of life is. So ‘returning to oneness’ is an analogy for merging with that ‘original state’. So I was just pointing out that we can’t overlook the realities of mundane existence even if we have awareness of ‘the undivided’. That’s the major part of the task of a spiritual path.

One thing that all these "different ways" have in common, is they are hard / tough ways to face what we have to face - indeed very hard / tough! — Daniel C

I think it would help you to re-frame the issue. My approach was shaped through the idea of the spiritual path; I never knew there was such a thing until realising I was on one, aged about 18. It has much more affinity with 'eastern' ways of understanding.

The view I formed is that problem we have in Western culture is that of a deep reaction against religious authority. And this has been going on for centuries. If you study the European religious wars, the Inquisition, and the role of religious authority in Western culture generally, it's not that hard to see. The European Enlightenment was formed in large part to escape from that or find an alternative to it - hence, secular humanism, formed around pragmatism and scientific theory rather than religious dogma.

The problem is, in my view, that religious literature and myth really do address the deepest existential dilemmas - as you're aware, through those quotes you've provided from the existentialists. And at least with Camus and Sartre, they showed some understanding of what the 'death of God' meant - Sartre wrote of the 'god-shaped hole' that it leaves in man and culture. They at least were conscientious atheists, atheists that really wrestled with the implication of atheism, rather than just gloating over 'how great science is', like modern atheists do, with zero conception of what it means, what really might have been lost.

I think we have to re-trace our steps in some sense. That's what I attempted to do by enrolling in comparative religion (and anthropology, among other things.) I believe there was a universal insight that was depicted in the different religious traditions. In the Western tradition, that gnostic element became subordinated to the requirements of popular religion and then rigidified into the dogma of 'thou shalt believe!' (This is well documented - I think the suppression of the gnostic element has had enormous long-term consequences in Western culture.)

Anyway, through my search, I came to the view that the original core of that insight has been preserved in many forms and cultures. That was the kind of Joseph Campbell/Huston Smith approach to religions - that they represent archetypes and 'myths', but in the positive sense of telling the story of the human condition in mythical ways (as it's a story that can't be told literally.) And the other important point about these approaches, is that they're hands-on - they're concerned with learning to see, learning to understand in a particular way. That has completely gone missing in modern Western culture, it's not even taught although it's been preserved in (for example) Buddhism (hence the ever-growing presence of Western Buddhism and other various permutations of traditional spiritual movements in modernist guise.)

The alternative seems to me to be a kind of never-ending argument about whether God 'exists' or not, mainly based on the cultural confusion that the West has generated about this whole question.

For a useful analysis of theism from a philosophy of religion perspective, have a glance at Who or What is God, John Hick. Also this review.

“doesn't it make it so much more likely / probable than man will choose in favour of "God"? It has this one big advantage that in being able to create Him in the way want to, we can create Him in such a way that our existence can be meaningful in a very fundamental sense?” - Daniel C

Hi Daniel C,

I think your reasoning makes sense based on the philosophical stage you’ve set.

In the context of the existential crises you mentioned - the “cold indifference” of the external world; the “freedom imposition” of the seemingly endless burden of choice; and the “inevitable angst” of the unchosen birth and death we all face - it does seem that the most comfortable respite is a form of religion that supplies a relevant sense of hope and meaning.
This brings to mind Pascal’s Wager; a sort of formula that weighs the pros and cons of theism versus non-theism as a chosen lifestyle. Pascal argues that committing to theism - taking this “leap of faith” - always results in the greatest benefit.
Of course, in this sense, committing to theism and taking this step of faith entails a choice of assent to its truth claims (i.e. believing that said form of theism is true and not simply a construct of the imagination).

All that to say, I do want to respond to the paradigm of reality that you established above, and see if I can submit a different angle on these existential experiences.
It seems to me, the general sense of the world described above is one where atheism is the default paradigm. That is to say, humans are thrust into these existential realities, and - precisely because these realities are the way that they are (absurd, nullified, doomed, etc) - we assume the only logical starting place is atheism. In other words, if God truly existed, the world would look differently. Thus, God is a fabrication of man to deal with the chaos of the real world.

This paradigm that I’ve described, an atheistic default, is what I’d like to challenge; I think there are some very interesting interpretations of these existential crises from the Christian point of view.

To start, I will present Alvin Plantinga’s idea of Properly Basic Belief and Warranted Belief in God.
According to Plantinga, Properly Basic Beliefs are beliefs that are accepted as foundational - not on the basis of over beliefs. Although these beliefs are not inferred from other beliefs or accepted on the basis of other beliefs, they are not therefore, groundless. For, these beliefs follow from foundational experiences informed by reality. For example, the following claims:

(a) I see a tree
(b) that person is angry
(c) I had breakfast this morning

represent a basic sort of experience related to a reliable sense of perception, memory, and understanding.

Plantinga supports the idea of a Sensus divinitatis - an intrinsic sense of the transcendent nature of things, naturally activated by certain existential realities.

In other words, this human tendency to attribute parts of our experience to the divine is intrinsic, not extrinsic (i.e. man does not “create” God, man “finds” God).

For example, the natural sense of awe or gratitude at the sight of a beautiful sunset, a delicious and satisfying meal, or even the humbling experience of an illness or suffering. Even among non-theists, this experience is often exclaimed in terms of, “the universe”, or a generalized sense of “karma”. According to the Sensus divinitatis, these hints of the divine come from within as a predisposed understanding of a transcendent reality.

And so, according to Plantinga, there are existential realities that conform to a properly basic belief in God. He calls this, warranted belief in God; and these beliefs are “warranted” when produced by a sound mind, in an environment supportive of proper thought, and in accordance with a design plan successfully aimed at truth.

Now, I will try to sum this up. I explain all of these propositions from Alvin Plantinga to present the philosophical notion that existential realities can also validly promote theism; atheism is not the only option for a default understanding of our existence.

I will add a couple of small thoughts to this basic paradigm shift.
Consider C.S. Lewis’s observation about our existential reality:

“The Christian says, 'Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or to be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage. I must keep alive in myself the desire for my true country, which I shall not find till after death; I must never let it get snowed under or turned aside; I must make it the main object of life to press on to that country and to help others to do the same.” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Alvin Plantinga’s description of Warranted Christian Belief strikes a similar chord; according to this argument, the Sensus divinitatis (or, innate sense of the divine) logically follows if Christianity is indeed true.

A proverb from the Bible itself seems to hint of an intentional design to the apparent contrarieties of life:

“It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.”
Proverbs 25:2 (ESV).
It seems from this proverb that the struggles of life are - at least to some degree - part of a benevolent and purposeful process of identity fulfilment.

Now, these thoughts I’ve pulled together mainly describe a Christian point of view, but I think the ideas presented above support the broader claim to theism’s validity.

It seems to me that this theistic paradigm, if indeed valid, shifts the entire foundation of existential perspective. Instead of entering into a cold and indifferent world where one must contrive one’s own meaning, morality, and destiny - to the absurdity of a hopeless mortality - one enters into a world with all of these metaphysical concepts pre-established in the fabric of reality. It is, indeed, the idea that “essence precedes existence”, rather than “existence precedes essence.”
Instead of straining toward a feigned delusion as a mode of subsistence, one is settling into benevolent design as a mode of true fulfillment.

This concept is intriguing, and even exhilarating. Not as wishful thinking or blissful ignorance, but as a philosophical and logical validity. Apparently, it is just as reasonable to presume theism as it is atheism. And, it seems to me, starting with theism can infuse significant hope into our perplexing existential realities.

Hi Wayfarer, thanks for the book recommendation!