The OP? You mean the thread has gotten off topic? Say it isn't so! [remove tongue from cheek]
Seriously, it's a good topic and deserves thoughtful discussion. Thank you for returning the thread to it!
I approach most of these type of questions (questions of meaning) from a different starting point, and one of the great challenges is to translate the various "Christian" theologies into that frame of reference, and the process of that frame of reference into something "Christians" can recognize and evaluate. I think that Jung is fundamentally mistaken here. He observes a "spiritual drive" or impulse and decides that it is innate rather than a result of socialization. Therefore this impulse must find an outlet somewhere; if not religion, then state-worship or some kind of "movement" greater than the member. But is the premise true? Is there an innate impulse to worship something?
Personally I believe there is not. This is a learned behavior. I do not see it in small children, it develops around ages 3--5 as part of the socialization by parents. Now if this socialization is not present, regardless of source, do we see a need to "worship" or adore some concept? In infancy there is a bonding with caregiving parents which reflects the infant's absolute dependence for all things necessary for life. When this attachment wanes and the child develops independence, the follow-on is a wider circle of human attachments, not an abstract concept.
Now this does not mean I believe that "atheists" are any less prone to a need for belief. I just think that this is a result of socialization. What kicks in is self-awareness. With self-awareness comes a concern about purpose and meaning. This I think IS an innate drive that develops from biology and neural development independent of socialization. All humans to one degree or another struggle with their place in the world at about the same stage in development. Socialization ("rites of passage") are intended to ease this process, but they do not create the need for it.
Many things are part of the human condition: fear, love, compassion, cruelty, faith, exaggeration, and so on. While all of these may not necessarily serve us well all the time, they all stem from something that is inherent and has a purpose. As much as some atheists may want to erase religion from the face of the earth, the need to have faith or to believe in something greater than oneself cannot be erased and will continue to manifest itself in one form or another.
I agree with the first part. I would agree that the second part might be true of many or most as a result of socialization. But I think there is another possibility. It may hinge on what you regard as "religion". If you use a functional definition ("religion" is what we create to deal with the problems of death, suffering, and injustice, for example) then, since these are universal problems everyone will encounter in life, some form of religion is probably universal. But people usually mean more than this when they refer to "religion". Usually they imply an additional set of beliefs based on what the socialization they have undergone holds true.
For example, the Abrahamic religions posit a personified deity that is immortal, involved in human history, and accessible by individual human beings. This being has the personality characteristics you mentioned earlier and exhibits behavior consistent with it. The concept of a personified deity, however, is rejected by some other faith traditions (notably philosophical Taoism). These individuals regard themselves as atheists with respect to all personified deities, and are generally regarded as atheists by adherents of personified deities. So what, exactly, to they have in impulse to worship? And do they worship?
Peace all, Jamie
