Some people believe that we are just animals. So they see no problem with lust for food, sex, and dominion or the negative consequences of these lusts to others. After all, the hardships of other animals, or even their death, are no concern of theirs because they think nothing in the physical world makes any difference except keeping oneself alive and satisfied.
In contrast, others believe that we are more than animals. For them, aspirations beyond self-preservation and self-satisfaction exist. They might seek fellowship with one another, or lesser animals (i.e., pets), or some combination of these with desires such as seeing the world, experiencing danger, or fulfilling some self-prescribed destiny. They have rules which govern their behavior, such as wearing clothes, because, being more than animals, they wonder how they were created and if there is a creator, what does he expect of them.
Therefore, the world is seen in two different ways, one, an environment in which to survive, and the other, a place to explore. For survivalists, procuring the necessities to service their lusts is all that is required and the means they use to achieve them doesn’t really matter. They might steal, rape, or enslave and never call these acts wrong because animals do these things without compunction and from their point of view, man is just another animal.
But if we are higher than the animals, we will have goals beyond the necessities for survival. We will explore the world and question how it came to be. If we exist by natural processes then being higher than animals is just a fluke and we can lower ourselves whenever we feel like it or aspire to higher causes when we don’t. This is the realm of the atheist.
However, the complexity of natural processes gives rise to doubt that nature could ever produce who we are since naturalistic changes that we observe always result in lose of design. And then, the Socratic man among us would ask “Even if nature did produce us, how did nature come to be?”
It’s a baffling question and takes a degree of blind faith to answer, no matter what your answer is. If you want to live like an atheist, then evolution is your bailiwick; if not, then a creator is your only choice. That creator might be an advanced alien or a god, but to us, he would really be one and the same thing, a designer outside the bounds of his created world.
So the fundamental question is really, “What do you want?” Do you want a creator god who establishes the rules for living in his creation or do you want a very long series of random accidents that made you and your environment? One implies that you have a purpose and the other doesn’t. If a creator’s purpose is simply to see if he could make you and everything around you, that would diminish you to just another animal with no apparent future interaction with him. But if his purpose is greater, that he intended man for a better destiny than an animal, then his rules for living would apply to you. This is what religion is all about, finding out what your creator expects from you.
There are many religions in the world, some with ridiculous answers to the question of your origin and purpose. They can be dismissed by everyone who wants an credible creator, that is, one who reveals a sensible answer why man exists. For the other plausible religions, I have found that Christianity is the only belief system that gives satisfactory answers to the question of our origin and why we were created. It says that we were spoken into existence for fellowship with our creator and that the world and the animals within it were created for our enjoyment. Further, that our current environment is corrupted by man breaking fellowship with God, and that it can be restored through Christ’s atonement for our mistake. But there is a requirement from man— he must accept Christ’s offer to rectify his situation with God. It’s a simple requirement but one that many people have been unwilling to meet. They either reason that we are animals with no purpose or we are better than the animals by an undirected stroke of luck. Their reasoning is predicated on what they fundamentally want, a life without the rules of a creator.
Ironically, Christianity says that God will give them what they want, existence without His fellowship, in a place where His goodness, by design, will not fall on them. It is what Christians call Hell because without God and His goodness, they see life as a punishment. They believe that we are more than animals with an inconsequential, temporary existence and that our intended purpose is to fellowship with God forever.
Understanding these two views of the world, it is clear to see why individuals behave as they do. But what is unclear is why most people deny the existence of a creator when accepting one doesn’t necessarily evoke change in how they live. Why can’t these people follow the example of a primitive man who believes in a creator but still lives like an animal? The answer to this question is hinted by Christianity. It says God gave all men and women a conscience about Him. Therefore, they will be mentally troubled if they admit He exists but continue to live like animals. Maybe this aggravation is the least of a primitive man’s worries or maybe, like intellectual man, he simply suppresses his thoughts about who he is.
