Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MageB420666
I believe he is referring to the fact that every culture up until present times has had a religion, or definition of a devine power(s)/being(s). Atheism on a large scale is a modern thing.
The usual explanation for this that I have heard is that humans have a natural need to follow "something", or believe that there is a higher "cause" that they are working for, or that can explain that which is not readily explainable by unscientific observations or experiments. As such every society has had some form of religion, be it a druidic worship of nature, a Roman or Greek pantheon of Gods and Godesses, a Monotheistic religion, or any of the eastern religions or small tribal religions that I don't know much of anything about.
So humans can in general be said to have a divine impulse, being an impulse to create/follow a divine power.
Why do we have it(in general)? I think it comes from a need for humans to feel that their life has a purpose, and many religions do provide a purpose for people.
|
You're missing my point: Why have we evolved this "divine impulse"?
If you claim that we create/follow religions in order to find meaning in life, then religion is socially rather than biologically driven, and hence we could not have a "divine impulse", further-more it fails to adress the even deeper question: why do humans have a need to find "meaning" in their lives AND why is it that specifically religion is able to address this need....and so on.
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the thread starter.
What I am saying is that simply plucking two seemingly arbitrary concepts out of thin air and declaring "
THIS is the reason" is of no use to anybody and does not suffice as an explaination.
To illustrate my point:
"The reason that humans are so fundamentally different to animals is because humans make and wear clothes where as animals do not"
This is a worthless argument, because:
a)It assumes that humans are not animals
b)It assumes that humans and animals are fundamentally different
c)It assumes that "wearing clothes" is a sufficient explaination of the apparent 'fundamental differences' mentioned in b.
d)It fails to explain why humans wear clothes and animals do not.
a. Can be ignored on the account it it being mere pedantry b,c and d however are more serious objections.