3. We are anthropomorphic in our thinking - we have a tendency to believe the world revolves around us (eg that rainbow must be a 'sign').
I have always been quick to challenge this.
First, because the people making this argument seem to be getting confused between anthropocentrism or anthropomorphism and mere personification. We humans tend to
describe things using human reference points, even inside our own heads, because it’s helpful for us to do so. It's similar to the "write what you know" principle. But that doesn't mean that we
really think of anything that way. Several times a day I say to myself, "This computer just doesn't want to give me an inch!" Am I really projecting my humanity onto the computer? No, not really. I know metal and silicon when I see it. I’m just in the habit of talking a certain way. I’ll bet there have probably even been cultures where people never did that sort of thing.
Second, because every religion that I know of, past and present, centers in some way or other—in some
sense or other—around the idea of something out there which is much higher than the self, to which we must give up our egotism and devote ourselves. Something which humanity pales in comparison to.
Third, because The Qur'an is, more than
any other religion in all of history, anti-anthropocentrism. “The creation of the heavens and the earth is far greater than the creation of humanity, but most humans are ignorant [of this fact].” (Surah 40, verse 57, Khalidi)
Fourth, if there are signs in nature then how does that make everything revolve around
us in particular? Why can’t other species be in on it too? Like djinn—or, for that matter, aliens or extradimensional beings? Why just us? Where does it say it’s all about us? I have never seen one tiny little whit of scriptural support for this notion that religion makes the whole world revolve around humans, in our own holy texts or anyone else’s. Not once. Not one quote from one book. In fact 40:57 up there proves quite the opposite is the case. Antireligious people just made the whole thing up out of their own imaginations (or maybe out of a misunderstanding of the fine tuning argument). It’s a total straw man.
Finally, even if we
did have an innate tendency to see signs in things, I could just turn right around and say that this tendency is what makes us so neurologically well-equipped to spot the very real signs that are actually there, whereas other animals might not notice them. Surely no one’s thinking of making an appeal to motive fallacy?