Fear of God is the First Instinct Behind Unbelief in the unbeliever

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
1

Claim: Fear of God is the First Instinct Behind Unbelief in the Unbeliever.

From the very beginning, humanity’s struggle with God has not been rooted in lack of evidence but in fear. Genesis captures this in narrative form: the moment Adam and Eve realized their vulnerability, they hid. Fear was the first instinct after the Fall; fear of exposure, fear of accountability, fear before a Presence too vast to comprehend.

That primal instinct has echoed through history. When faced with the immensity of creation, a cosmos billions of years deep, galaxies strewn across unfathomable distances; the natural response is not reverence alone but fear. God’s scale and power are overwhelming, and so we recoil. Rather than confront the infinite, we reduce it.

This pattern repeats: Israel forges a golden calf; ancient cultures carve gods of wood and stone. Why? Because a god we can shape, touch, and control is far less terrifying than one whose power upholds all existence. Modern science is not immune to this reflex either. To ascribe consciousness to quarks, or agency to a “field,” is to shrink divinity down to something that can be diagrammed, modeled, and contained. It avoids the raw encounter with a Creator whose size cannot be boxed in.

Yet this fear is misplaced. If God’s sheer power were tyrannical, creation would have collapsed long ago. Fourteen billion years of sustained order, beauty, and life testify not to a cosmic despot but to patience, restraint, and faithfulness. Fear may be the instinct that keeps unbelief alive, but it is not rationally warranted.

To believe is not to deny the instinct of fear but to see beyond it, to recognize that the very immensity that frightens us is also the guarantee of stability and the promise of mercy.

2

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom,

So claims Scripture, but it is not the totality of wisdom. Wisdom notes that despite His power there is still evil going unchecked and pain and suffering. Perhaps God’s view of perfection is not the same as ours? Eden is a human pipe dream, there is no indication that it is actually what God created or wanted. There are so many things God could have done to satisfy our view of Paradis or easy living. Genesis seems to suggest that work is some sort of punishment!

If yo look at the primitive or heathen view of God or Gods they are very human in their outlook and behaviour. Even now people have the nerve to compare God to human morality and justice.

Perhaps God has tried His level best to overturn this view of God, but everytime He tries we interpret it in the worse possible light or compare it to a human action. Even Christianity, the so called pinacle of religion (By Christians at least) is rife with selfish exclusiiveness and selfish dreams of eternal happiness.

Maybe we should start from God instead of humanity when we consider His Nature.

Richard

3

Richard, thank you for such a thoughtful reply. You’re right to say that “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom” is not the totality. It’s a doorway, not the whole house. Scripture itself keeps unfolding that point; fear becomes awe, awe becomes love, and love matures into trust. John even says, “perfect love drives out fear” (1 John 4:18).

You raise something important: the tension between God’s power and the reality of suffering. I don’t think Eden was a “pipe dream” so much as a mirror held up to us; what life in harmony could be, and how quickly we fractured it. Genesis never depicts God as afraid of human work; in fact, stewardship of creation was always part of the vocation (“to tend and to keep”). The curse is not work itself, but the futility that follows when work becomes frustrated by thorns and sweat. That’s a very different picture than punishment for labor.

You’re also right that across history, humanity projects smaller, human-like gods because it’s easier to handle something we can box in. That’s really what my earlier point was getting at: we shrink the Infinite into idols because the alternative, His raw, unfathomable majesty… is overwhelming. Even now, we tend to humanize God’s justice, as you say, making Him look like a bigger version of us.

But here’s the pivot: what if the real path is what you suggest, starting with God’s nature rather than our projections? That reframes the whole enterprise. Instead of trying to explain Him away in human categories, we let His self-revelation reshape our categories. That’s what Christianity at its best does in Christ: He overturns our projections. A suffering God? A crucified Messiah? That wasn’t anyone’s dream of “easy paradise.” That was God redefining power itself through self-giving love.

I think we actually agree on something essential: the human record is full of misinterpretation. We keep reading God through the lens of our fears, our self-interest, our longing for comfort. But the invitation is to invert the lens, to start with who He reveals Himself to be, and let that light reinterpret everything else.

That’s why I think “fear” really is only the beginning. Once we see His patience, billions of years sustaining creation, thousands of years working with stubborn people, the cross itself, we realize this is not a God who rules by terror, but one who rules by enduring presence.

4

Fear is a very basic human instinct, that I will grant. Some of my earliest memories of Sunday School involved the fear of going to hell which is where the teachers told me I might go if I don’t do what God says. One of the rooms we went to had some hot water pipes that ran close to the tile floor, close enough that it produced a couple of hot spots. I imagined that these were places where hell rose close to the surface. Connecting fear with not believing in God was a theme throughout my time growing up in the church.

As I moved into adulthood I found I no longer believed. I have often heard people describe some atheists as “they never really believed anyway”, and that probably describes me. The child-like beliefs I had towards God stayed in my childhood and weren’t replaced by beliefs that I see in Christian adults. That fear I experienced as a child also disappeared.

I’m not sure how this fits in with your ideas, but thought I would offer my data point as an unbeliever.

5 Likes
5

Thank you for sharing this, and especially with such sincerity. Your story about Sunday school and the fear of hell is actually a powerful example of what I was pointing to: fear as the very first instinct that shapes our relationship to belief or unbelief.

For you, that fear was tangible and close; hot pipes on the floor became an image of hell. That kind of teaching, focused on fear without the fuller picture of God’s character, can make faith feel like something to escape from rather than grow into. I don’t discount that at all; in fact, I think it shows why so many people, when they reach adulthood, set aside belief altogether. If God is only associated with punishment, it is natural to push Him away.

But here’s the reflection I was reaching toward: if fear was the first instinct humanity felt after the fall, while Adam and Eve (whether metaphor or cosmic example, or philosophical reflection) hid in shame , afraid; then it makes sense that fear remains the instinct that still stands between us and belief. Fear is powerful enough to shape even unbelief. You yourself said: once that childhood fear disappeared, your belief disappeared with it. That link is very telling.

And here’s the twist: the fear itself is unwarranted when you look at the big picture. If God were only raw power, tyrannical and destructive, the world would not have lasted 14 billion years. Fear suggests He might crush us in His immensity,

but creation itself proves He has sustained, ordered, and even restrained His power for our sake. The instinct of fear is ancient, but it does not tell the whole truth.

So your story adds weight to the claim, not less. It shows how fear can be the foundation of both false belief and unbelief. The challenge, then, is to move beyond fear toward wisdom. And wisdom begins not only by acknowledging God’s magnitude, but by discovering that His power is matched by patience, mercy, and a purpose far deeper than fear could ever reach.

6

I guess I don’t understand this part. Adam and Eve always believed in God, and they were never unbelievers. That’s why they tried to hide from God. Their fear was also quite justified because what they did got them kicked out of the Garden of Eden, not to mention the other punishments that were meted out (e.g. pain during childbirth).

2 Likes
7

:smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

Forgive me, but that sort of wisdom does not come easily and not all can find it. Scripture itself admits as much.

It is the reason rhetoric and apologetics have only limited value and use.

Richard

8

What would I have to fear if Love were the ground of being? Nothing beats the terror of believers.

9

Rhetoric and apologetics have, in fact, helped hundreds of millions wrestle with questions of existence and find coherence in their faith. That’s not something to dismiss lightly, it should be celebrated, unless debate itself is what’s feared.

What I hear in your words is that you’ve been pulling on one thread for a long time, and that thread has reinforced itself layer after layer. That’s very human, it’s how adaptation works. Once you concluded your early experiences were destructive, your mind understandably turned to contrary beliefs. But what happens is that your channels of information now flow almost entirely in that direction. Especially in today’s world, algorithms amplify and reinforce those pathways. Without even choosing it, you’re surrounded by ideas, voices, and inputs that all confirm disbelief. It becomes a kind of echo chamber.

I don’t deny that I too have my own convictions. But the difference is I’m not inventing evidence from within myself; I’m looking at what is already out there in the public sphere and testing it against reason, history, science, and Scripture. That synthesis has room for friction, tension, and discovery. My concern for you is that your construct leaves little room for contrary voices to penetrate, and so the deeper questions risk being closed off before they can even be explored.

Wisdom is difficult, yes. But it’s not impossible, if the pathways we walk aren’t sealed off by the very mechanisms (human and algorithmic) that keep us from hearing anything different.

10

You talk about love as if it were some abstract cushion, but you don’t even pause to thank the very Source for the love you claim frees you from fear. That irony is telling.

Love is not a random accident; it is the first force that yielded creation itself. Gravity is its mirror in physics: it pulls in, holds, binds, and sustains. At the micro level, it keeps atoms in orbit and families together. At the macro level, it keeps galaxies in place and life woven into harmony. Love is not passive sentiment, it is the active ground of being. And yes, it transcends even those who deny it.

But here’s the problem: what you call liberation is in fact detachment. To move toward the Source of love is order, transcendence, meaning. To deny it is to move toward decay and entropy. That’s not just theology; it’s the language of the cosmos itself.

So while you joke about “terror,” understand this: the terror isn’t in God. The terror is in a path without Him, where all that is left is disintegration. That you still feel love at all is evidence of mercy, of a Father watching even a prodigal who’s chosen the far country. You could still turn and come home… or keep wallowing with the pigs. You know the story. The everlasting embrace is still offered, even when we are filthy beyond counting. Trust me, if God kept a ledger of our failures, the world would need a whole new data center just to store them.

11

I’m not free of fear, for I know that Love is not the ground of being. But I’m free of the fear of the incompetent God the Killer, God the Hater, God the Damner.

12

You didn’t get those images of God the “killer, hater, damner”, from God Himself. You got them from broken and flawed humans, some echoing in your own head as untested abstractions. That’s not seeking truth; that’s recycling distortion.

For someone who claims to lean on evidence, it’s telling how little you actually weigh what you’re saying here. These caricatures of God aren’t reasoned arguments; they’re emotional outbursts meant to sting. And that’s what this looks like, lashing out because you feel boxed in, not contributing anything of substance.

It’s becoming predictable, almost transparent, like rice paper. The truth is, you’re not as free as you claim. You’re caught in a strong, worldly delusion; an algorithm of disbelief that reinforces itself every time you press “send, swipe, or scroll”.

1 Like
13

Perhaps i am wrong, but I detect a note of negative criticism. I am not sure what thread you thin i have been pulling or at what stagre of deusion you think I am at, if that is your diagnosis.

You appear to have read me wrong. I would not stil use it if i thought it worthless. But, as Dirt Harry said, A man must know his limitations.

I have few illusions about either my faith, or my witness, or my influence. I leave most of that in the hands of God.

Again I fail to see where you get this from. My faith is grounded in my life experience. It could not survive without it, and could easily have been overturned by it.

If you folllowed my posts you would find I am continually looking for and trying to understand alternative views to my own, but not to change either them or mine. Understanding is also a vital element to wisdom, and a good rhetoric, or apologetic needs a firm foundation of understanding to be effective, otherwise you are creating the proverbial strawmen. The problem I observe here, on this forum, is that most, if not all are here to teach and convert, rather than understand and discuss. (convert as in gain agreement or concord)

The inability to see it, perhaps. You seem to desire, what can be found, yet cannot bring yourself to see it.

That is not the Crhistian view of God. it is not even the Scriptural view of God, but it might be a human view of the Old Testament portrayal of God.

Although it is made up of verse and chapeters, and books, Scripture has to be understood as a whole complete work. As they say
The Devil is in the details.

Richard

14

Hi Richard,

In all honesty, it is hard to capture every nuance in someone’s reply, or rebuttal. It sounded like apologetics was more harm than good, or at least that’s what I took away in your reply. I am sorry if I misunderstand or made you feel that I responded negatively. The language or frequency of all of our dialogues is important, but I think dialogue frequencies align over time for better understanding of one another., whether in the affirmative or in disagreement. So again, sorry if my enthusiasm tinges the dialogue to seem negative, but hopefully I can can grow from this.. I’m new here after all and this is guidance to me.

So are you for or against apologetics to answer deeper questions?

15

I think it depends as much on who you are talking with as to what you are talking about. The framing and content of your argument must be aligned with what the other person accpts or belives about Scripture or other things. It is no use making an argument based on the reality of the Garden if the listener does not accept that reality. and so on.
The problem with blind witness and preaching is that it can go over the heads of the listenrs or hit a solid brick wall of negativity. A person who rejects Scripture needs a different approach from the one who thinks it is God in written form. I do not see apologetics as somethng fixed or formulated, it is more a case of using language to convey what you mean effectively. Sometimes I find that my use of language on this forum is so off piste as to be ineffective and even counter productive, despite considering myself to be a bit of a wordsmith. Experience and culture can throw a spanner in the works of even the most crafted speech or argument.

Richard

1 Like
16

Richard, you’re right to framing matters correctly. Words can miss their mark when the hearer stands on different ground. I’ve seen that myself: if someone doesn’t accept the reality of Eden, starting there can feel like talking past each other.

But here’s where I push back a little: if truth is truth, then at some point it should stand outside of the shifting frames we bring to it. Cultures change, assumptions change, but the question of whether Scripture aligns with reality remains the same. And that’s where my “quest” comes in.

Look across history. Test it. Search Roman annals, Greek philosophy, Egyptian records, Babylonian chronicles… anything. See if you can find one credible, witnessed account that directly contradicts the broad arc of Scripture. For all the cultures, all the records, all the witnesses across millennia, you will not find one that undermines its testimony. At best, you’ll find silence; more often, you’ll find confirmation in ways the writers themselves could never have staged.

That’s the difference between apologetics as clever words and apologetics as discovery. Words shift depending on audience, yes, but history itself stands there to be examined. And if Scripture really is what it claims, then it should not collapse under scrutiny, no matter how you frame it.

So I would say: keep honing the words, as you suggest. But also, test the history. Let that be the anchor beyond rhetoric.

1 Like
17

I get them from the Bible, the Church. If you have interpolated and extrapolated a better God, as did I, as the emergent do, that’s not God projecting his ‘true’ image on your concave cranium wall. It’s you. The God of the Bible, in Christ, of Christ, cannot be caricatured any worse than what it is. Not . Love. You project Love on to it. And that works for you as it did for me. Until, in one ghastly moment of tested, reasoned, evidentiary truth, it was rent from me. Your mind reading skills lack psychological insight. Lack good will. Are not Rogerian. You are therefore my inferior. To be pitied in your arrogant ignorance. Does that sting? And can you rise above it? In Love.

18

Seems that I upset you… you can be superior no problem! I will relent to being inferior and let my life revolve around your truth… thank you for showing me the light… URIKA!!! :rofl:

19

I’m disappointed. That upsets me.

20

I always start off with “Reason” and “amicability”, but when someone engage in a condescending manner, don’t complain when it’s dolled out right back at ya. Sorry, I tried to have a debate and dialogue, but following your lead on condescension. We can reset if you want to be more pragmatic and present real argument.