Surely the more interesting question would be what causes humans in particular to give up on life?

Along with all other living things we are naturally driven by life; and living to eat, rest and procreate is part of that drive.

We however, to a greater degree than any other species, have a true sense of our own mortality, something which is undoubtedly highly confronting to many. We have adapted means to deal with the enormity of the realisation that our lives are finite and developing a religious sense is just one of those adaptions. There are many others.

We know there are circumstances where even though they are provided with adequate water and food some animals will die in captivity, essentially giving up on life. Humans are capable of doing the same. When emotional pressures among other things are too much people willingly take their own lives. Many who contemplate it speak of feeling trapped.

Living life doesn't really need a purpose, just the act of doing so is enough. However in the service of a religious or general metaphysical sensibility having a purpose is useful even if it is to challenge things that impinge on our ability to freely live our lives.

That our indigenous folk were highly tuned to the rhythms of the seasons and the life around them, which they relied so heavily on, would engender a heightened sense of connectedness to the natural world is completely understandable.

That a more formalised religious order was needed when societies gathered in greater numbers as they did in Europe doesn't mean it was superior, just that it better fitted the requirements.

Adhering to a formal religion should not be confused with finding a purpose in life even though it can be used that way. If it serves to lessen the stress of mortality then that is good enough.

yes, most people I know just go through he motions of life, making or trying to get money, and family.

probably too busy to think about having a purpose, at least until their elderly age or when they feel lonely

Not_Now.Soon,

Thanks for giving a religious view of LIFE (the biological entity).

Unfortunately the problem with your religious view is that it relies on God creating the Universe out of nothing and nothing is nothing and nothing cannot be used to create something.

The scientific view of LIFE is that it is a molecule(s) that is capable of changing itself. That is, it creates something (a molecule) out of something (atoms) that existed prior to the creation of LIFE.

As such there is a theoretical basis for the scientific view of LIFE but no theoretical basis for the religious view of LIFE. One can show the creation of LIFE scientifically but one cannot show the creation of LIFE religiously.

A person with a scientific view of LIFE (the biological entity) can support his view with evidence and theory. A person with a religious view of LIFE cannot support his view with evidence and theory. The religious view of LIFE is totally insupportable.

Mr Opinion.

Nevertheless, religious faith is real and relevant to a question "what is life", because faith is a belief that motivates and comforts real people, no matter what you and I may believe about whether God is real or fictional.

It is an important part of life for many people.

Chris,

I am not debating the psychological aspects of a religious view of LIFE.

I am dealing with LIFE as a biochemical entity, as life forms whether bacteria, plants, fish, or humans.

Not_Now.Soon can only show that a religious view holds if God can create something from nothing but as everybody knows nothing is nothing and cannot be turned into something.

For a religious view of LIFE (the biological entity) to be accepted he needs to show from evidence or theory that something could be created from nothing, which of course he cannot do.

Fair enough, but my take is that the thread was always focusing on both dimensions given we were asked about our lives as well.

In this sense, both the physical and metaphysical are relevant to the thread, so I don't see any failure even if one does not explain the physical.