Necessary Connection

Humans have this inherent trait where we look for relationships between two concurrent events. We see a flame being held under a piece of paper, and the paper burns. Hume makes the empirical case that we can not know for sure that a certain event will follow a cause, so why do we continue to form this idea of a "necessary connection" and believe it so strongly when it is quite open to contradiction? It is obvious then that we seek out some sort of a consistency in everyday life, as it must be a biological drive for us. Much as Aristotle believed we are rational by nature, we must ask why we have this need for consistency. I believe it to be a survival mechanism of the evolutionary sort, and is akin to the need for purpose or self-fulfillment. It is quite a strange facet of human nature, one that applies to no reason in particular, and points instead to the possibility that we are driven by more than reason and what is rational. However, is it really so strange? Why must all human behavior and mode of thought be governed by reason and rationality? Can't reason instead be a mere facet of human behavior? After all, it is through human thought and behavior that we come to the study of philosophy, so it would be quite feat for the study to overcome the scientists to become the actual functioning of the universe (and indeed the process of trying to determine the universal functionality through disproofs is irrational in the same way one learns the rules of a game through playing the game incorrectly). What I mean by this is philosophy exists within our minds, and there are certain things people do which they cannot control, so that leaves us with two possibilities. One, the inherent traits that people cannot control have some significance that can be discovered through philosophy or some study or, two, they have no rational existence and philosophy exists as no more than a creation of the mind. Continuing with the former, we must then assume that there is some sort of rationality as to why we have these evolutionary drives such as arousal, hunger, self-fulfillment, etc. We assume this because if the opposite were to be true (there is no rationality to our uncontrollable actions) then we can stop writing and thinking about it now. It seems, though, that the mere fact these things exist points to some higher plan (even it be as simple as a continuation of the species) and we must press on with why why why. Why is it important in the GRAND SCHEME of things that our species survive? Why do we want to survive? Or, more importantly and perhaps the greatest question of all, why do we exist? Personally, I like to think that there is no reason to any of it and that everything that happened was the result of arbitrary formations (it was through disillusionment with the idea of a greater plan that I came to this conclusion), but one thing is certain: you can not be in the middle. Either there is some sort of plan or there isn't. Literally it is impossible to believe in the slightest whim of anything "greater than ourselves" and irrationality at the same time, much like an atheist could not believe in God a little bit. Anyway, getting back to the point Hume was making about the source of "necessary connection", I believe it is deeply ingrained in our biological programming (though it could have been introduced through our customs, which does NOT mean it isn't biological since society is just a reflection of our basic drives) and shows our need for consistency. Now, as to why we need consistency, Hume did not speculate and that is where I will attempt to pick up where he left off.