Beyond 'how' to 'what' and 'why'

Rating: 10/10 (8 August 2017)

Just the other day I finally saw The Arrival and I was struck by the first exchange between the two specialists chosen to try and figure out a way to communicate with the aliens visitors who parked their spaceship in Montana without bothering to ask the permission of the US government. Technically, their presence in US airspace and on US soil constituted an invasion; presumably China and the ten other nations around world that suddenly found themselves unconsentingly hosting alien spaceships (warships?) saw the situation in similar fashion.
Jeremey Renner's character tries impressing Amy Adam's character by reading her a passage from one of her books in which she claims that language is the foundation of civilization. He compliments her both on the sentiment she expresses and on the beauty of her writing, but immediately corrects her. For him it's obvious that the foundation of civilization is science, not language. This odd flirtation between the two eggheaded academics is destined to ... well, you should see the movie if you want to know what happens next.
What struck me was this: In reality, both characters are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong about origin and foundation of civilization. Science/technology and language are two separate, distinct, and complimentary means by which civilization is communicated. Neither science nor language is the 'stuff' of civilization. They provide the 'how' but not the 'what' and 'why'.
To my estimation, the 'what' and 'why' constitute civilization, and it's religion (in it's broadest and most basic sense) that furnishes the 'what' and 'why' of civilization for us and, presumably, for beings like us. Religion itself, in the sense of the universal spiritual impulse that I've described elsewhere, arises in response to the need for meaning, purpose, and connection. It's all well and good to be able to communicate, to have the means for communication, but without a connection, without personal intimacy, you're not likely to share anything that is of value and meaning to you. But when both parties have a shared purpose that gives some meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence, they choose to become intimate with each other, like lovers. And from the intimacy of beings who love each other, family arises, continuing across space and through time a love that creates and protects and expands and binds together.
Love becomes the 'what' and 'why' that brings together beings who once were strangers and makes of them a spiritual family, and from the love of the spiritual family religion is born. So maybe what I said about religion and civilization wasn't quite precise, since religion is also a means, a tool, by which the love that creates the spiritual family is formalized, institutionalized, made lasting, made present to the world. The foundation of our civilization (and presumably of other civilizations) is the generative love that creates life within a community, which we call the family.