Our ancestors understood origins by extrapolating from their own experience; how else could they have done it! So the universe was hatched from a cosmic egg or conceived in the sexual congress of a mother god and a father god or was a kind of product of the creator’s workshop; perhaps the latest of many flawed attempts. The universe was not much bigger than what we see and not much older than our written or oral records; and nowhere very different from places that we know. We tended in our cosmologies to make thing familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we have not been very inventive. In the West, heaven is placid and fluffy; and hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture, we imagined something like our own political system running the universe; few found the similarity suspicious.
Then science came along and taught us that we are not the measure of all things; that there are wonders unimagined; that the universe is not obliged to conform to what was considered comfortable or plausible. And again if we are not important, not central, not the apple of god’s eye, what is implied for our theologically-based moral codes? The discovery of our true bearings in the Cosmos was resisted for so long to such a degree that many traces of the debate remain; sometimes with the motives of the geocentrists laid bare.
So what do we really want from philosophy and religion? Palliatives? Therapy? Comfort? Do we want reassuring fables or an understanding of our actual circumstances? Dismay that the universe does not conform to our preferences seems childish; you might think that grownups would be ashamed to put such disappointments into print; the fashionable way of doing this is not to blame the universe which seems truly pointless but rather to blame the means by which we know the universe, namely, science. Science has taught us that because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely rein. Its conclusions derive from the interrogation of nature and are not in all cases pre-designed to satisfy our wants.