[leflambeur]

That is very much not immaterial.

If God does exist and is our creator, then we're designed to recognize him (at least to strive to, or have some innate need to); failing to do so or radically abdicating from this need would lead to disaster.

In other words, in the God-exists scenario, we are not merely observers of a phenomenon who can be detached from it.

[SketchySeaBeast]

But that framing only really works if we assume a Abrahamic world view.

Other cultures don't and didn't relate to their deities in the same way. Do we then have to assume they all suffered lower life satisfaction than a 11th century German peasant because of their detachment from a singular god the creator? Why didn't they strive for the relationship you're describing?

Trying to put God with a capital G at the center of our lives as some innate need doesn't make sense from a historical context.

[leflambeur]

That’s not what we’d have to assume.

I don’t know about religions in the general sense, and you’re right to point out that I very much have the “Abrahamic world view”, though my case is much much more specific than that but that’s not relevant here.

What we might more safely assume is that the Creator is revealed through history and a group to whom it he’s not revealed might pursue him more ignorantly (I appreciate the language might sound offensive or condescending but that’s not the intention) but in that pursuit they’re still better off than someone who willfully rejects him.

This I believe is relevant to the post, as these societies have not gone from one god to another, but to none.