From what I understand, the argument goes something like this:
1. Belief in god is a part of human nature
2. (scene missing)
3. Therefore, if you don't believe in god, you must be depressed
From what I've been able to determine, 2 is supposed to be "If you are missing a part of human nature, you must be depressed," which on some level, can make sense. My counter:
1. Warfare is a part of human nature
2. If you are missing a part of human nature, you must be depressed
3. Therefore, if you never go to war, you must be depressed
Although I can't be sure of it. Nobody mentions step 2, which is frustrating, especially when others expect me to be convinced by a missing argument (or, for that matter, convinced of my own depression and its singular cause). What's the entire argument? How did psychology get into this in the first place?
1. Belief in god is a part of human nature
2. (scene missing)
3. Therefore, if you don't believe in god, you must be depressed
From what I've been able to determine, 2 is supposed to be "If you are missing a part of human nature, you must be depressed," which on some level, can make sense. My counter:
1. Warfare is a part of human nature
2. If you are missing a part of human nature, you must be depressed
3. Therefore, if you never go to war, you must be depressed
Although I can't be sure of it. Nobody mentions step 2, which is frustrating, especially when others expect me to be convinced by a missing argument (or, for that matter, convinced of my own depression and its singular cause). What's the entire argument? How did psychology get into this in the first place?