Is is just possible that as living, sentient, feeling creatures it's easiest for us to try to relate to other forms of life (and other structures), by endowing them with properties we have, whether they actually possess such properties or not?
That's how people came to believe that volcanoes were thinking, purposeful, angry entities. People might hurl fire and stones when angry, so to the simple primitive mind, endowing the mountain with purpose, anger and desire made sense. But it was wrong.
Man has done the same thing with earthquakes, storms, tsunamis, disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and virtually every dramatic natural event. Over time those of us willing to attempt to understand things in other than human terms have unlocked the true nature of such events. But some seem destined to continually repeat the mistakes of the past. It may be easiest to anthropomorphize (personify), in an attempt to gain understanding. But in every example of nature, such a process has proved inappropriate and yielded nothing but false conclusions.
Why might we expect that continuing to utilize the same failed principle is going to do other than yield the same false conclusions?
"Alive", "life", "living", "sentient" and "feeling" are all words man has developed to describe certain properties common to some entities. Rocks are not alive, they're not sentient, they possess no system of tactile awareness, they don't reproduce, don't exhibit homeostasis or metabolism. To assert that they are alive or sentient is to misapply those words as they are defined.
To assert that anything has a soul is to disregard objectivity and evidence and appeal instead only to one's personal desires and subjective opinions. And such a process has lead man on one wild goose chase after another since the first mutterings of superstitious dogma. Part of our survival depends on recognizing patterns. If we note that when others pick up a particular snake, they are bitten and die within days, it's beneficial to us to recognize the pattern so that we might avoid it ourselves. Should we note that berries of one color and form are good to eat while those of another color and shape are bitter or even seem to preceded death, we can utilize the pattern noted to our survival advantage.
Unfortunately, not every pattern we believe we see is truly indicative of the conclusions we draw. Man's insistence to disregard that fact has retarded our development throughout our history. Only in the past 400 - 500 years have we noted that there are accurate ways of determining the significance of patterns and inaccurate ways of drawing conclusions based on perceived patterns. That's why the scientific method was developed, refined and solidified. And it has lead to virtually every valid discovery made in the time it has been utilized. If we continue to subscribe to ideas of subjectivity and desire, we will continue to draw false conclusions.
The evidence shows that a form of nervous system is necessary for tactile awareness. Life does not exist without metabolism, structural organization, growth, homeostasis, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction. Plants are alive and animals are alive. A very few structures lie in between (such as a virus). But to say that rocks, sand, dirt, diamonds, oil reserves, mineral deposits and the like are "alive" is simply to misapply the term.
