System Superiority and the 'Real-ness' of Numinous Experience

It occurs to me: so often people scientistically figure we experience what we experience because of our evolutionary genetic 'program code', but what if they have it just reversed? Perhaps the purpose of our having the evolutionary genetic 'program code' that we have is so that that we experience the meaning and significance that we experience.

And this makes me think about why these East meets West grand theories are so problematic: while one side investigates the 'code' system (and infrastructure) and so sees its supremacy over experience, the other investigates the 'meaning' system and so sees its supremacy over the 'code'; one is scientism, the other ideology, but both are equally dogma in their absolutist claims. Perhaps more truthfully they may only be effectively superior to the other in some areas and ultimately neither is superior over the other in the larger picture. Perhaps together they make a single integrated interface with feedback loops on both scientific and experiential scales (both material and spiritual scales, both micro and macro scales, both individual and human-wide scales, both compact cosmological and diverse differentiated scales and 'both' etc. ad nuaseam).

And this naturally makes me wonder how such a system might come about, and it's a question I fear because I cannot fathom how there could be a single resolved 'originating both' (with real explanatory power on 'both' sides) as with the 'systematic both' cases above.

Andreas Kluth says here: "Sure, it might be helpful to see meaning (= believe in God), but that does not mean that there actually is meaning (=God). Sartre might be right after all." Yet I rather think Sarte had a belief, because he believed there no God, and this belief and its consequences had meaning for Sarte. Thus I agree with 'Phillip S Phogg' here when he says it may not matter whether we believe there is or isn't a 'God', what matters is that we believe something and thereby we have meaning. (Although unlike Phogg, I refrain from making any blanket [objective] statements about ' all so-called objective realities'.)

I somewhat agree with 'Solid Gold Creativity' who argues in the same place that "human beings are meaning-making machines". Although I'd use 'meaning-matrices' because machine connotes a certain scientism I'd avoid, and while 'making' underscores his thought that there is no innate meaning within the universe or cosmos, such a thought seems a dogmatic assuming presumption, as does that meaning is already there and that we simply 'find' it.

Similarly I believe I am an agnostic: while I believe humans can make no non-dogmatic statements about the absolute nature of the universe (or cosmos) or the (or any) divine, I yet derive meaning (and observe other humans deriving meaning) from the association of our numinous experiences with 'divine flavor'.

For me, meaning and the numinous experience are, and remain, my experiential bottom line, but I cannot resolve to place them in any hierarchy.