But thinking critically about theism is actually a lifelong intellectual exercise. Our questions are merely different ones Chris -in that you are asking 'How' we come to be here because that is absorbing to you.
I am asking 'Why' -
I'm not sure there has to be a "why." It is our anthropocentricity that leads humans to believe there really is a
why to existence. But you're right in that I am not asking the why question and you are. It would only be after discovering that there is intelligence behind human origins that I would begin to ask the why question. Without a plan or design and a planner or designer the why question seems meaningless.
I suppose this discussion illuminates another "cost of believing," that we can add to the long list Guy P. Harrison runs through in
Chapter 21: "I don't lose anything by believing in my god." It appears a believer does lose a great deal by believing. Belief in a form of intelligence behind the origins of life and the universe causes the believer to ask unnecessary questions, such as "why" we are here. Instead of focusing on the real question of
how things originated, the believer, assuming they already know the
how starts to ask questions that are rendered meaningless (if their original assumption is wrong). Do you agree that the question of "why" is rendered meaningless if the question of "how" doesn't show intelligent design?
Some questions only make sense if something else is known first. For example, I'm sure you would agree that the question of, "Is the Loch Ness Monster an herbivore, carnivore or omnivore?" is a meaningless question if the question of "Does the Loch Ness Monster exist?" is not answered first.
Likewise, it is meaningless to ask about "why" humans were created if you haven't first answered the question of "who" or "what" created humans.
Further example:
"Why were igneous rocks created?" - Nonsense question because there isn't an intelligence that created igneous rocks. Igneous rocks are formed by the solidification of cooled molten rock. The "why" question is senseless in this example. There isn't a reason why.
"Why was that chair created?" - This question makes sense because we know that chairs have an intelligent designer. We already know the answer to the "how" question so it makes sense then to ask why the intelligent designer decided to create the chair.
And this is why I focus on the "how" and not the "why." You have to know how something was created before you can ask "why" it was created. Nature doesn't have a "why" answer and if nature if responsible for creating something then you needn't ask questions about the mind of nature. Nature doesn't have a mind.