There is a religious instinct that explains much beyond religion.

Con argues, "Religion is an attempt to commune with or approach the divine. Almost all cultures engage in this activity not because of a common instinct, but because all people are divine." My interpretation of what Con is saying is that people believe they have something in common with the divine, so they seek to better understand that relationship through religion. The literal statement that "people are divine" is false. The powers of perceiving the world are not divine powers, they are human powers. Moreover, if they thought that they had the status of a god, then they wouldn't be seeking to know gods; rather they would think themselves self-sufficient. Still, Con has a point in that individual views of reality are necessarily self-centered. In some sense the world is a show put on for the benefit of the individual perceiving it. That perception elevates the person to the center of his personal universe in certain sense. I don't think this contravenes an X Instinct, however. I think it is a manifestation of the X Instinct. The X Instinct is postulated as the conjunction of (1) an instinct to explain the world, (2) tribalism, and (3) rationalization to preserve the ego. A desire to "commune with or approach the divine" clear serves both to explain the world and to attempt to bond with the divine tribe. It is ego driven in that the activities help maintain the self-centered universe of person, as Con supposes. There is conflict in wanting to stay at the center of one's universe and also subordinate to the tribe. Instincts are not logical; they are allowed to pull in different directions based upon circumstances. The postulated X Instinct allows many manifestations that serve the instinct. Factors outside of the Instinct determine whether it will be manifested in adopting a traditional religion or a radical political ideology or a radical neo-pantheism. Moreover, if the person adopts a traditional religion, the Instinct does not determine which religion the person will choose. Con's supposition that "Religion is an attempt to commune with or approach the divine." does not explain the religions that do not feature gods. The prominent example is Buddhism. The Buddha explicitly advocated avoiding of consideration of the question of whether or not gods exist, and took no position on the subject. http://www.religionfacts.com... (As Buddhism spread, a number of the variants merged with traditional folk religious beliefs, so non-belief is far from universal among Buddhists. Still, the original teachings of Buddha are also widely believed.) A number of other religions have atheist variants, even Christianity. Daoism and Confusionism are considered de facto atheistic. http://atheism.about.com... Religions that are not god-centered nonetheless offer explanations of how the world works and a community that shares and supports those beliefs. The beliefs are rationalized. For example, bad luck in life is explained by Buddhists via reincarnation, in which errors of past lives are revisited. Hence, Instinct X explains godless religions, but Con's alternative does not. Con's hypothesis may help to explain why some people choose certain types of religion, but it does not explain religion in the many forms in which it is expressed. That religion cannot be defined by belief in gods is an important clue that there a larger instinct at work. Once the larger instinct is pointed out, then not only do atheist religions fall in line, but all-consuming ideologies that have long been observed to have many characteristics of religions. In fact, beliefs that are not all-consuming, but which pretend to provide simple answers to complex situations are well-explained. Those range from racism to ecology-worship. For these reasons, the resolution should be affirmed. My thanks to Con for a highly intelligent debate that has given me new points to ponder.