Throughout history, human societies have developed frameworks to explain what lay beyond their understanding. Before the rise of science, events like storms, plagues, or the changing seasons were often explained not through impersonal processes, but through will and intention. This was a coherent first step: assigning agency was a way to impose a story on chaos.
In this early sense, the concept of God functioned as a placeholder for the unknown—a cause for effects without a visible cause. It was a primitive but functional model.
This role changed as societies grew more complex. When small communities formed kingdoms and empires, power needed a legitimacy that force alone could not provide. Belief systems supplied it. Obedience became sacred duty, moral law was declared divine decree, and authority was placed beyond earthly challenge. God had shifted from an explanation to the foundation of governance.
To preserve this authority, religions built powerful structures around three pillars: scripture, messengers, and community identity. Scriptures froze rules in time. Messengers—or their priesthoods—controlled the interpretation of truth. Most crucially, a strong communal identity bound believers, framing their worldview as the one true path. New traditions often acknowledged earlier faiths only to declare them incomplete or corrupted. This pattern speaks less to a search for truth and more to a strategy for institutional survival.
These structures are self-perpetuating. From childhood, adherents are taught a specific narrative within a closed community. To challenge the story is to risk one’s identity, belonging, and spiritual fate. This explains why figures like Galileo or Darwin were so radical: they empowered individuals to see evidence over doctrine. Few are willing to pay such a high personal cost for inquiry.
The ultimate test of any belief system is what we trust with our lives. When faced with a pandemic, even the devout surrender to doctors, not priests. When building a bridge, they trust engineers, not prayers. This global, silent surrender to science and technology is the most practical verdict on religious authority over the physical world. Consider Artificial Intelligence: if organized religions held the power they claim, they would have forbidden AI as a forbidden intelligence, just as they tried to halt the ideas of Galileo and Darwin. They did not, because they cannot. Their realm of enforceable authority has shrunk to matters of personal belief—precisely the areas immune to evidence.
This retreat reveals the most telling feature of institutional religion: it is defined not by what it explains, but by what it preemptively excludes from inquiry.
Every major religion offers an origin story for the universe. None permits the logical next question: what is the origin of God? The response is not investigation but exemption. God is declared eternal, uncreated, and beyond causation. This is a boundary drawn by command. The rule that “everything must have a cause” is applied universally—until it reaches the entity invoked as the first cause. Then, the rule is suspended.
History shows this pattern is enforced, not debated. When Galileo provided evidence for a sun-centered solar system, the institution defended doctrinal finality. When Darwin demonstrated natural selection, the resistance was to the implication—that humanity’s existence required no special intention. The conflict was never just about facts; it was about the threat to a governed narrative. The tension arose because science refused to stop questioning at the appointed limit.
Here lies the defining conflict of method. Science treats all explanations as provisional, advancing through doubt and testing. Organized religion, as a social power structure, must treat certain answers as final to preserve its foundation. Religion often posits that God is found where logic ends. Science concludes that a god who ends logic is an illogical proposition. They are describing the same boundary from opposite sides.
The difference is one of consequence. Science responds to ignorance with investigation that leads to vaccines, satellites, and understanding. Institutional religion, to maintain its authority, must often respond by declaring the matter settled—a stance that inevitably cedes ground in the real world. This is why we no longer blame angels for storms or demons for mental illness. The domain of the divine shrinks in direct proportion to the expansion of reliable knowledge.
The God presented by organized religion is, in this light, less the foundation of reason than its designated endpoint. Personal belief is not the issue; it can be a profound experience. The problem arises when belief is systematized into an unchallengeable narrative, shielded by social power, and placed in opposition to the human impulse to ask, “What’s next?”
God began as a profound question. Institutions turned it into a final command. Human progress is measured by how often we choose to question again.
Maq Masi Blog 
Leave a comment