asaris

I'm willing to accept what you say in your first paragraph, at least for the sake of argument (I'm not really sure the thirst for knowledge is generally innate, but that could just be due to the fear of the unknown). What I take issue with is the step between "The function of theism is to act as an interim between the dawn of consciousness and the beginning of reason" and "As such, the continuation of theism will continue to act as an anchor to reasonable scientific progress." The first thesis is not unreasonable, given your premises, but I'm not sure how the second follows from the first. Perhaps, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you assume that the only function of religion is to explain unknown phenomena. However, religion does not function merely as a poor substitute for science -- it also provides a broader metanarrative. And far from acting as a brake on science, it was this metanarrative that made science possible in the first place, and currently does not work to hinder science. How could it? It operates at a different level, in a different sphere.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche