A split second reminder of the inevitability of your own death, makes unimportant everything you do in life.

Making important the things you do: is life. That's all there is.

Working and giving to society so that we feel important.
Feeling important so that we feel worthy of being loved.
Feeling worthy of being loved, so that we are loved.
Being loved, so that what we do: feels important.

Providing and caring for family and loved ones: feeling important.
Feeling important so that we feel worthy of being loved.
Feeling worthy of being loved, so that we are loved.
Being loved, so that what we do: feels important.

Being a moral examplar/helping others: feeling important.
Feeling important so that we feel worthy of being loved.
Feeling worthy of being loved, so that we are loved.
Being loved, so that what we do: feels important.

Death, in this way, imbues us with creation.
To create importance, where there isn't any.
To build a church and to pray: to feel we're doing something important.
To build a governmental institution and to create order: to feel we're doing something important.
To build a company, manufacture medicine and save lives: to feel like we're doing something important.

Once again. Despite the inevitability of our death, why do we persist to manufacture importance in what we do?

To feel worthy of love.
To be loved.
To reinforce that what we do: is important.

Indeed, this is not a new theory: that the existence of religious institutions (amongst all institutions) can be traced back to: man's fear of death.
Man's fear of that which he does not understand.
That which he cannot understand.
Man's fear of: the unknown.

Comments, opinions, disagreements?

"Because it's there"

Why is what we do important, besides needing to feel that what we do is important?

The inevitability of death drives us to cling to any meaning/importance we can find in our lives. Except, replace the word 'find' with 'manufacture'.

Why is it important whether what we do is important? Particularly, why is it important that that meaning is important to something other than ourselves?

Find an original edition of Lee's JKD.

piss, eat, sleep.

+complexity.

so ya. i'll just surf this one.

I think you can do better. A good theory of religious institutions should connect to our best ways of understanding society: our theories of economics, evolutionary psychology, and so on.

For instance, why do humans fear death? How does religious institutions alleviate this fear? Given that religious institutions are so resource intensive, what benefit to they provide to the propagation or survival of different societies? Is there something about religious institutions that is distinctly different from secular institutions?

Also, how would you test for your theory? Is it an implication that religious people are more or less afraid of death than non-religious people?

Its not.

Its important that we feel what we do is important. For reasons outlined.
Its not important.

The only thing that is: is that we feel what we do is important.

Failing this, there would be no perceived value in living.

I should have specified more clearly. The theory is overarching and its implications are not solely for religious institutions. Broadly, the theory suggests that ALL human institutions can be traced back to man's fear of death, and the role of death (the unknown) in the way we define (create) importance in what we do.
Not at all.

Its not so much a 'fear' of death per-se, but simply an awareness of the inevitability of one's own death: which all conscious beings presumably share.

I'm not yet sure of how it can be tested, since it does not appear to be falsifiable, at the present.

We're social animals, like rats or hamsters or dogs or screaming chimpanzees. Nearly everything we do comes from a drive to care about our social standing and social safety and social power.

It's also why people believe in and feel a personal God. A species without strong social drives would not invent or feel a personal God, and would find the idea quite bizarre given that universe is devoid of any evidence of one.

I disagree with this part though. Death is certainly part of it, but animism is as old as time and infected most cultures. Much of it involved putting human qualities onto various objects and ideas. The Abrahmic god (like the Hindu gods) are the same thing filtered through more civilized brains. I think people would invent the spiritual world and have similar ideas about a god and gods and spirits even if we didn't die. It's a consequence of being deeply social and seeing social causes in everything. Our brains are heavily wired to do that (our very mechanism of thought - language - is derived through social interaction, and we spend most of our time thinking about people and feeling their presence and influence) and it spills over into all of our thinking.

The underlined is a big claim.

Please more closely explain the connection between:

The idea that some part of 'you' exists after death (inventing a spiritual world).
And...
How this idea would emerge in a hypothetical world where no one dies.

The spiritual world isn't just about life after death. Ideas like Cartesian dualism are as old as time. People wonder "what am I, and is some part of me different from what I'm made from?" The answer to primitive peoples, and most people today, is yes. That's the essence of the idea of a soul.

Both intellectually and emotionally, people have imbued items with an eternal human reality to them, including rocks, the earth itself, the universe, ideas, events, animals, plants and feelings. If we lived forever we would posit other planes of existence. We would still believe the weather comes from weather Gods. We would believe we have an eternal essence. We would believe we can improve our crops by petitioning a powerful entity. We would believe in powerful forces and demons and creators of maladies and health.

The question "how did we get here?" and "what is our purpose?" and "does someone watch over us like our parents did?" and "can we change the future?" and "is there a powerful entity who can hear us who we can petition?" don't go away just because we don't die.

Even the ideas of heaven and hell and salvation would probably exist, because the human mind can comprehend an end, even though it's never seen someone die, and wonders what is after. For example, the lack of ever having seen one hasn't stopped religions from positing a second coming, the end of time, Armageddon, etc

Then what's 'spiritual' about it?

In a hypothetical world where no one dies, it wouldn't be a 'spiritual' world that would be invented. It would simply be, an alternative reality.
So are ideas of 'life-after-death'....could it be purely coincidental?
Yes, we would posit parallel universes or alternative realities. Not 'spiritual worlds' however. 'Spiritual' implies the existence of some part of you; after you seize to be (death).
This is not convincing. Just by re-asserting 'we would still believe' is not enough to explain why or how. Please explain why or how we would believe in weather Gods? I'd imagine if we were immortal, the weather would be largely irrelevant; as would crops; as would maladies and health.
Those questions wouldn't go away, indeed, but they don't necessitate 'God' or 'religion' on their own either.
This just doesn't make sense to me.

If you contribute, you feel worthy. Worthy of love.

In psychology, it is most often the case that unemployment determines a large chunk of one's self-esteem (especially in men) and feelings of belonging. That is to say that, the longer you're unemployed, the more you feel you don't belong.

Extending this, we also observe that those who feel they belong and feel worthy of love, are more likely to find love, and be loved.

Individuals who aren't happy with themselves (have no love for themselves), find it difficult to build meaningful relationships with others.

I speak in averages, which is often where the confusion lies, in interpreting what I'm saying.

On average (outliers excluded), people who feel worthy of love are also on average, the same people who are likely to be contributing.

On average, the people who feel worthy of love, are also on average, the same people who are likely to be loved (by family members/partners/friends and others close to their life)

If you're not in this average, then this broad theory would not be able to predict your particular situation.

I hope this clears it up. I just don't like having to specify 'on average' before everything I say.

I'm not going to dig into the psychological journal archives and pull it out article-by-article, but if it interests you I'd suggest looking into more modern psychological literature, such as the literature around 'self-efficacy'.

Its important to your own sense of belonging. Upon which you draw to construct your sense of self-worth. You're a social animal, just like the rest of us, and if you don't feel you belong in this social context (society), your sense of self-worth will suffer.

As it suffers, so too will your ability to build meaningful, loving relationships with others.

It may help to understand if you try to imagine that the government and everything outside of your own subjective experience and personal development, is non-existent.

A belief in your ability to accomplish the task of 'finding love' or 'finding genuine human connection' will make it more likely that you will.

Where do you think such a belief is likely to come from?

Do you think that your sense of self-worth might have something to do with maintaining such a belief?

Sure. But in that case nothing truly experiences joy either.

Apathy is a sure-fire way to maintain a depressed mindset.

If you like it then keep it up.
Should we also avoid getting close to people? because if they die, and we've attached our sense of self-worth to how we contribute to their life, then we will 'lose' ourselves...

To lack passion for the things you do in life is far from recommended, but I'm not here to preach about what you should or shouldn't do: whatever floats your boat.
If you tried unemployment for 6-12 months or longer, I'm quite confident that your self-worth and your sense of belonging would not be the same. I'd be very surprised if they were.
You're not defining and limiting yourself. You're merely beginning to be aware of the numerous causes that provide input to your general sense of belonging and self-worth.

You don't need to be loved by anyone?

Your poetic sentiments about being love itself are poetically sweet, at best. Representative of your psychological reality? only momentarily.

Yes.

And coming back to those who instead get attached to their work...

If you advocate attachment to people, but disagree with attachment to work, then would it be so radical if I suggested that its OK to get attached to both? and more aspects of one's life? Passion is essential in all of one's pursuits. At least to me.

While I agree with your general sentiments, I would add that the two paths you've mentioned here are just that. Two paths to spreading love.

Our point of difference is seemingly small, but important. I believe there are many paths. Many more than just two.

Keeping open to the possibility that there may even be a path down the ruthless/competitive/capitalist road is important I think.

Its a source of input. Not the only source. And while for some it is the only source, for most it is not.

One thing that is worth reconsidering: Is attachment and detachment always within our conscious control? Even if you think you can consciously control what you are attached to, it's wise to continue to question and observe this moving forward.

Less control over what we attach to.
More control over whether we stay attached to it.

Perhaps there is some truth in this in some perspectives, but death is viewed very differently across cultures (and individuals). A good way to approach that is to ask "what is more important than life" and then try and ask this question from different cultural / ethnic / religious / philosophical paradigms.