Why Religion?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

you will not reach a "Heaven." But ancient people had no way of knowing that..

??

Gnostic Christians and other more naturalistic or wisdom based religions knew that.

Here is how it was expressed.

I could be a mind exercise for you.

Let me speak to the lie of Gnostic Christians hating matter.

I wrote this to refute the false notion that Gnostic Christians do not like matter and reality that the inquisitors propagated to justify their many murders of my religion’s originators. It shows that Christians should actually hate matter and not Gnostic Christians.

The Christian reality.
1 John 2:15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Gen 3; 17 Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.
-----------

The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.

Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.

[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.

But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.

Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?

Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”

That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

We live under dualistic systems.

You should recognize the good in bad.

As to your last, an example as a proof oc concept would be required for agreement.

As is, you are way to vague.

Regards
DL

Yeah, let's all be grateful for the gifts of rape and murder. There's a silver lining in everything

Indeed.

Sure beats trying to take the Yin out of Yin and Yang.

The intelligent will not stupidly try to do what you are doing.

At least you were not so stupid as to deny our dualistic universe.

Regards
DL

 

[steve_bank]

Learn something new every day, a new -ism tp gnaw on.

More allusion to some kind of cosmic agency and hand waving. Wnen in doubt inject irrelevance to try and create an impression of authority.

Concepts are a cretion of the human mind, cosmic dualism appears to be a routine projection of human cncpts on relity to make the universe seem human, defining physical reality with human attributes.

Tre is no objective or absolute cosmic morality. Morality is a cultural consensus.

The mystical types claim to be an agent of a cosmic moral absolute. I am right and the universe is a reflection of my righteousness.

Reality on Earth is kill or be eaten. Is there a morality to a predator prey relationship, lion and antelope, or is it just evolution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duali...raditional religions and scriptural religions.

Again, Gnostic appears to be despite his protestations is just a generic Christian with delusions of granduer..

Dualism in cosmology or dualistic cosmology is the moral or spiritual belief that two fundamental concepts exist, which often oppose each other. It is an umbrella term that covers a diversity of views from various religions, including both traditional religions and scriptural religions.

Moral dualism is the belief of the great complement of, or conflict between, the benevolent and the malevolent. It simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and independent of how these may be represented. Moral opposites might, for example, exist in a worldview that has one god, more than one god, or none. By contrast, duotheism, bitheism or ditheism implies (at least) two gods. While bitheism implies harmony, ditheism implies rivalry and opposition, such as between good and evil, or light and dark, or summer and winter. For example, a ditheistic system could be one in which one god is a creator and the other a destroyer. In theology, dualism can also refer to the relationship between the deity and creation or the deity and the universe (see theistic dualism). That form of dualism is a belief shared in certain traditions of Christianity and Hinduism.[1] Alternatively, in ontological dualism, the world is divided into two overarching categories. The opposition and combination of the universe's two basic principles of yin and yang is a large part of Chinese philosophy, and is an important feature of Taoism. It is also discussed in Confucianism.

Many myths and creation motifs with dualistic cosmologies have been described in ethnographic and anthropological literature. The motifs conceive the world as being created, organized, or influenced by two demiurges, culture heroes, or other mythological beings, who compete with each other or have a complementary function in creating, arranging or influencing the world. There is a huge diversity of such cosmologies. In some cases, such as among the Chukchi, the beings collaborate rather than compete, and they contribute to the creation in a coequal way. In many other instances the two beings are not of the same importance or power (sometimes, one of them is even characterized as gullible). Sometimes they can be contrasted as good versus evil.[2] They may be often believed to be twins or at least brothers.[3][4] Dualistic motifs in mythologies can be observed in all inhabited continents. Zolotaryov concludes that they cannot be explained by diffusion or borrowing but are rather of convergent origin. They are related to a dualistic organization of society (moieties); in some cultures, the social organization may have ceased to exist, but mythology preserves the memory in more and more disguised ways.[5]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Marriage in a n ancient tribe or group would be meant to reduce conflict and male competition.

Abraham essentially pimped out his wife for personal gain.

I believe the ancient Hebrews allowed multiple wives.

The Christian family historically was often based in spousal abuse. Wife and children as property of the male.

It is not just us 'immoral' fornicating atheists. Prominent Christians divorce and remarry, according to Jesus a crime.

All those things preserve the tribe and represent the tribe's identity, including sacrificing your children. Supplicating to and accepting the protection of an abusive guardian to preserve tribe and identity isn't exactly surprising, and neither is defending those behaviors. The tribe is the god, the god is what the tribe says it is. The tribe and the god are indistinguishable in their behaviors because they are the same thing.

 

[steve_bank]

Marriage in a n ancient tribe or group would be meant to reduce conflict and male competition.

Abraham essentially pimped out his wife for personal gain.

I believe the ancient Hebrews allowed multiple wives.

The Christian family historically was often based in spousal abuse. Wife and children as property of the male.

It is not just us 'immoral' fornicating atheists. Prominent Christians divorce and remarry, according to Jesus a crime.

All those things preserve the tribe and represent the tribe's identity, including sacrificing your children. Supplicating to and accepting the protection of an abusive guardian to preserve tribe and identity isn't exactly surprising, and neither is defending those behaviors. The tribe is the god, the god is what the tribe says it is. The tribe and the god are indistinguishable in their behaviors because they are the same thing.

Looking at world as it is, is stability possible without some overarching mythology? Romans considered religion essential to civil order.

We are seeing a breakdown of order in the USA, we no longer have a common identity that Christianity was once part of.

You and I for whatever reasons think we can reason beyond superstition and religion. Is it possible for everyone to think like we do?

There is a Buddhist school of thought that says enlightenment is not possible for everyone. That leaves rituals and moral codes for the masses.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Marriage in a n ancient tribe or group would be meant to reduce conflict and male competition.

Abraham essentially pimped out his wife for personal gain.

I believe the ancient Hebrews allowed multiple wives.

The Christian family historically was often based in spousal abuse. Wife and children as property of the male.

It is not just us 'immoral' fornicating atheists. Prominent Christians divorce and remarry, according to Jesus a crime.

All those things preserve the tribe and represent the tribe's identity, including sacrificing your children. Supplicating to and accepting the protection of an abusive guardian to preserve tribe and identity isn't exactly surprising, and neither is defending those behaviors. The tribe is the god, the god is what the tribe says it is. The tribe and the god are indistinguishable in their behaviors because they are the same thing.

Looking at world as it is, is stability possible without some overarching mythology? Romans considered religion essential to civil order.

We are seeing a breakdown of order in the USA, we no longer have a common identity that Christianity was once part of.

You and I for whatever reasons think we can reason beyond superstition and religion. Is it possible for everyone to think like we do?

There is a Buddhist school of thought that says enlightenment is not possible for everyone. That leaves rituals and moral codes for the masses.

Can a species be intelligent and also the source of its own destruction? I don't think so.

 

[steve_bank]

Looking at world as it is, is stability possible without some overarching mythology? Romans considered religion essential to civil order.

We are seeing a breakdown of order in the USA, we no longer have a common identity that Christianity was once part of.

You and I for whatever reasons think we can reason beyond superstition and religion. Is it possible for everyone to think like we do?

There is a Buddhist school of thought that says enlightenment is not possible for everyone. That leaves rituals and moral codes for the masses.

Can a species be intelligent and also the source of its own destruction? I don't think so.

We could have an endless debate on intelligence. One of te best scifi movies was Forbidden Planet.

An alien race develops wireless technology that allows anyone on the planet to bring anything into physical reality by thought. Unwittingly it unleashed d the collective negative aspects of the subconscious on each other leading to destruction.

Philosophically I'd say wisdom and intelligence are two different things. Intelligence is a capacity, wisdom is how to apply capacity.

It is unwise to consume resources like water to total consumption, like the Colorado River. It takes intelligence to figure out how to make things that consume water. Like creating Las Vegas in a desert.

In the USA conservatives have a religious faith that the free market economy left alone will solve all problems. Unwise in the face of reality.

IMO we have failed the Darwin Test.

 

[bilby]

Looking at world as it is, is stability possible without some overarching mythology? Romans considered religion essential to civil order.

We are seeing a breakdown of order in the USA, we no longer have a common identity that Christianity was once part of.

You and I for whatever reasons think we can reason beyond superstition and religion. Is it possible for everyone to think like we do?

There is a Buddhist school of thought that says enlightenment is not possible for everyone. That leaves rituals and moral codes for the masses.

Can a species be intelligent and also the source of its own destruction? I don't think so.

We could have an endless debate on intelligence. One of te best scifi movies was Forbidden Planet.

An alien race develops wireless technology that allows anyone on the planet to bring anything into physical reality by thought. Unwittingly it unleashed d the collective negative aspects of the subconscious on each other leading to destruction.

Philosophically I'd say wisdom and intelligence are two different things. Intelligence is a capacity, wisdom is how to apply capacity.

It is unwise to consume resources like water to total consumption, like the Colorado River. It takes intelligence to figure out how to make things that consume water. Like creating Las Vegas in a desert.

In the USA conservatives have a religious faith that the free market economy left alone will solve all problems. Unwise in the face of reality.

IMO we have failed the Darwin Test.

That you are here to make that claim is proof that it is false.

If you are around to wonder how you are doing on the Darwin test, then you are passing it.

 

[Jarhyn]

We could have an endless debate on intelligence. One of te best scifi movies was Forbidden Planet.

An alien race develops wireless technology that allows anyone on the planet to bring anything into physical reality by thought. Unwittingly it unleashed d the collective negative aspects of the subconscious on each other leading to destruction.

Philosophically I'd say wisdom and intelligence are two different things. Intelligence is a capacity, wisdom is how to apply capacity.

It is unwise to consume resources like water to total consumption, like the Colorado River. It takes intelligence to figure out how to make things that consume water. Like creating Las Vegas in a desert.

In the USA conservatives have a religious faith that the free market economy left alone will solve all problems. Unwise in the face of reality.

IMO we have failed the Darwin Test.

That you are here to make that claim is proof that it is false.

If you are around to wonder how you are doing on the Darwin test, then you are passing it.

Are we all forgetting, somehow, here, that trees have done about as bad to the environment WRT lignin?

Species do stupid shit all the time. It's a craps shoot every time whether the error is fatal or not.

 

[steve_bank]

We could have an endless debate on intelligence. One of te best scifi movies was Forbidden Planet.

An alien race develops wireless technology that allows anyone on the planet to bring anything into physical reality by thought. Unwittingly it unleashed d the collective negative aspects of the subconscious on each other leading to destruction.

Philosophically I'd say wisdom and intelligence are two different things. Intelligence is a capacity, wisdom is how to apply capacity.

It is unwise to consume resources like water to total consumption, like the Colorado River. It takes intelligence to figure out how to make things that consume water. Like creating Las Vegas in a desert.

In the USA conservatives have a religious faith that the free market economy left alone will solve all problems. Unwise in the face of reality.

IMO we have failed the Darwin Test.

That you are here to make that claim is proof that it is false.

If you are around to wonder how you are doing on the Darwin test, then you are passing it.

Are we all forgetting, somehow, here, that trees have done about as bad to the environment WRT lignin?

Species do stupid shit all the time. It's a craps shoot every time whether the error is fatal or not.

What the fuck?...over. Trees? Sounds like Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity.

Serendipity is part of evolution and the inverse. You may be the best adapted fish in the lake, but if the lake dries up you are history.

The difference is we are aggressively draining the lake we live in knowing the consequences.

 

[Jarhyn]

Are we all forgetting, somehow, here, that trees have done about as bad to the environment WRT lignin?

Species do stupid shit all the time. It's a craps shoot every time whether the error is fatal or not.

What the fuck?...over. Trees? Sounds like Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity.

Serendipity is part of evolution and the inverse. You may be the best adapted fish in the lake, but if the lake dries up you are history.

The difference is we are aggressively draining the lake we live in knowing the consequences.

You may not like to hear it, but lignin almost destroyed the entire ecosphere because nothing could eat it for a very long time. And as it is, the lake was mostly drained before we were even aware consequences were a thing, much like all the trees burning because sometimes, BIG mistakes happen before understanding of why they are problematic.

It does not take intelligence OR a lack of it to cause the apocalypse. It only takes a lack of foresight, a lack of understanding, and a lack of consideration of the products of those things.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I just looked over the wikipedia entry for lignin. It is a substance found in the cell walls of all vascular plants. Among other things, it allows for efficient transfer of water into cells. What's your source for the claim you make about lignin? Just curious & willing to read further.

 

[Copernicus]

I think of a religion as a social movement that plays at least the following functional roles:

• Promotion of a moral code
• Theory of how nature works
• Origin story
• Promotion of social cohesion
• Social welfare program
• Coping mechanism

Since we first learn morality--a code of conduct for safe and comfortable social interactions--by authoritarian means, i.e. from parents, caregivers, and role models, religion continues that model (in loco parentis) for individuals who become adults. Because our first experiences in life are sensations and control over our bodies and events outside of the body, it is natural to explain natural forces as controlled by other spirits. Religion provides a narrative to satisfy our curiosity as to how we came to exist and what our place is in the world. Religion also enforces a sense of public duty and altruistic behavior. Even before government welfare, religious institutions cared for the poor, the unhealthy, and those faced with personal crises.

Over time, traditional religious institutions have been eroded by the emergence of secular governments, more sophisticated understanding of natural forces, the evolution of cosmology, and their failure to help us cope adequately with modern problems. So secularism has been on the increase and religion has been suffering a decline in popularity, particularly in younger generations. I suspect that religion will make a strong comeback as the global environment degrades further. Under stress, people have a harder time coping, and religion is still the default for those in need of a coping mechanism. Many secularists tend to gravitate towards institutions like the UU church, which is more tolerant of, if not welcoming to, those who have rejected belief in deities.

 

[steve_bank]

Are we all forgetting, somehow, here, that trees have done about as bad to the environment WRT lignin?

Species do stupid shit all the time. It's a craps shoot every time whether the error is fatal or not.

What the fuck?...over. Trees? Sounds like Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity.

Serendipity is part of evolution and the inverse. You may be the best adapted fish in the lake, but if the lake dries up you are history.

The difference is we are aggressively draining the lake we live in knowing the consequences.

You may not like to hear it, but lignin almost destroyed the entire ecosphere because nothing could eat it for a very long time. And as it is, the lake was mostly drained before we were even aware consequences were a thing, much like all the trees burning because sometimes, BIG mistakes happen before understanding of why they are problematic.

It does not take intelligence OR a lack of it to cause the apocalypse. It only takes a lack of foresight, a lack of understanding, and a lack of consideration of the products of those things.

But tees do not make active decisions nor can they cause smog.

Yu can argue that us humans are just acting IAW with our generic nature, but then that negates the idea we can make a decision not to be self destructive. Humans are now reacting to climate change, in no small part because it is affecting economics.

Plants compete in slow motion for resources. Bring a plant or fish in from abroad and it can devastate other indigenous life. Numerous examples.

The ecosystem has no defense against our excesses. It can not compensate.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I think of a religion as a social movement that plays at least the following functional roles:

• Promotion of a moral code
• Theory of how nature works
• Origin story
• Promotion of social cohesion
• Social welfare program
• Coping mechanism

Since we first learn morality--a code of conduct for safe and comfortable social interactions--by authoritarian means, i.e. from parents, caregivers, and role models, religion continues that model (in loco parentis) for individuals who become adults. Because our first experiences in life are sensations and control over our bodies and events outside of the body, it is natural to explain natural forces as controlled by other spirits. Religion provides a narrative to satisfy our curiosity as to how we came to exist and what our place is in the world. Religion also enforces a sense of public duty and altruistic behavior. Even before government welfare, religious institutions cared for the poor, the unhealthy, and those faced with personal crises.

Over time, traditional religious institutions have been eroded by the emergence of secular governments, more sophisticated understanding of natural forces, the evolution of cosmology, and their failure to help us cope adequately with modern problems. So secularism has been on the increase and religion has been suffering a decline in popularity, particularly in younger generations. I suspect that religion will make a strong comeback as the global environment degrades further. Under stress, people have a harder time coping, and religion is still the default for those in need of a coping mechanism. Many secularists tend to gravitate towards institutions like the UU church, which is more tolerant of, if not welcoming to, those who have rejected belief in deities.

I agree with some of your opinions, but ---


[*]Promotion of a moral code

As I write, secular law favors equality, while religions preach homophobia and misogyny.


[*]Theory of how nature works

While positing a supernatural god who created un-naturally, talking serpents and donkeys and all.


[*]Origin story

Too foolish a notion to speak to, both historically and scientifically.


[*]Promotion of social cohesion

Yes. For the in group only. Not for the out group, including gay children and the second class women that bore them.


[*]Social welfare program

Yes. Promise women support before abortion and then desert her afterwards.

Christianity used to be a great religion. Supernatural belief took it's goodness away.

Think inquisitions for the better religions of those days, like Gnostic Christianity. Where people who grow a Christ mind go.


[*]Coping mechanism

There are better ways to cope with the realities of life than paying a con man or woman to lie to us.

The right wing of Christianity is sinking all of Christianity.

The Christian moral code, as practiced with homophobia and misogyny are clearly immoral.

All moral people will agree.


Regards
DL

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Humanists may consider themselves secular or religious. Many of us who grew up in a church may miss the spiritual support it provides. In college, I often went to the Unitarian Coffee House, an area for talks, games, and snacks on Friday nights.

When it was time to marry, we called on Reverend Gold from the UU church in Richmond who counseled us and performed the service in the park.

A church, any church, provides spiritual support for moral people seeking to be good and to do good. The camaraderie, the music, the message, all contribute to maintaining a “holy spirit”, that is to say, “feeling good about doing good and being good”.

And it helps to have that support in a world where the wicked often profit at the expense of the rest of us.

But a formal church is not a necessity. We also have the camaraderie of the authors we read, the discussions with like-minded people, and even discussions with people who disagree but help us clarify our faith.

And, yes, it is a matter of faith. All churches that claim to follow God, also declare God to be Good. And it is our faith in Good that sustains us.

I've stopped seeing religion as necessarily being about God or the supernatural. Today I see it in functional terms. A religion is any kind of nucleus to meet around. Could be ideological, a shared interest or a shared goal. The point is that it allows us to let go of our individuality for a bit and become part of a greater whole. We like it because we're a social species and it feels nice.

The point isn't to reach the goal. The point is to meet people and do stuff together. To create a space where we feel safe and we can express a part of ourselves.

The stuff we do creates a shared identity. We like putting symbols and names onto the identity.

For various reasons some of these we institutionalized.

The awesome feeling we get from being part of these associations have led some of us to insert magical reasons. So these are often, but not always, places for spiritual exploration. Which often leads to belief in gods. We also like being part of these groups that in part are mysterious. Which adds to the need to make it magical.

That's my view of religion. Super vague. Super open. Nebulous.

And most importantly, everybody with a functioning social life is religious in some way or another. It's unavoidable IMHO.

I've stopped slamming Christians for being religious. One day I realized my glass house was windy. I too have had (and probably still have) a bunch of beliefs I hold only because it grants me access to people I want to hang out with. I think it's normal for socially competent people

Yes yes.

We are all sinners, thank all the God like us.

We all share in singing with Christians of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.

You seem to forget that while you praise the good side of the god religions, those bastards continue to promote homophobia and misogyny and that a genocidal god is somehow a good God.

Gotta love um. Cant respect um; given the harm the right wing supernatural believing fools continue to do to us.

Regards
DL

Still, there is progress, such as Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

The best way to end human sacrifice is by asking a person to sacrifice their son?

It's a story. The story conveys a lesson. The lesson is to abandon the practice of human sacrifices.

Or by creating a clone that is brutally sacrificed to allow god to forgive all the broken humans he created? How could any of this be consistent with a step forward in the evolution of morality?

Well, they had to explain how the "son of God" ended up being crucified. And after the temple was destroyed, I suppose animal sacrifices were no longer possible. And the story of the crucifixion became God's sacrifice for our sake, an act of love.

Forgiveness wins over vengeance and retribution. Ya gotta love the theme.

An all-powerful god has no way to achieve his objectives without harming humans? Sounds like a weak-ass god to me.

Well, after all, He is only human.

And the plagues upon Egypt's Pharaoh were specifically aimed to free the slaves. There were rules in the OT about how long a person could be held as a slave, and I think some rules required offering marriage to female slaves after a period of time, or if the slave chose not to marry she would be released.

Instead of providing rules to slave-owners about how slaves should be treated, why not just say "Slavery is immoral. No human shall ever own another human as a slave"? I mean he did ban eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from mixed fabrics, but he couldn't tell us not to own slaves?

I suspect that slavery was a moral improvement over killing your enemies, their women, and their children (to avoid them rebuilding their tribe and coming after you).

 

[Marvin Edwards]

How intriguing to see desperate biblical misrepresentation. Has anyone ever noticed that there's also hetrosexual 'fornication' on the list, also not accepted? Few more on the list for you... Drunkards, thieves and liars too.

Why should fornicators be placed in the same bucket as drunkards, thieves and liars? While drunkards, thieves and liars may be harming others or themselves through such activities, fornication between consenting adults can and does increase the well being of humans. Why should fornication be banned? What is wrong with two or more consenting adults having sex?

Marriage imposes an ethical structure upon mating. This stops the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and insures that any children that result will have two adults responsible for their well-being.

 

[Jarhyn]

I just looked over the wikipedia entry for lignin. It is a substance found in the cell walls of all vascular plants. Among other things, it allows for efficient transfer of water into cells. What's your source for the claim you make about lignin? Just curious & willing to read further.

Oh I might be wrong about lignin. But not about trees. Look at the history of mass extinctions on earth.

For a very long period of time, indigestible tree bodies just piled up, to the point giant peat bogs would form, and then eventually they would start burning.

And because nothing was there to eat it, the burning wouldn't stop.

It happened so regularly for such a long time that whole species of trees evolved that had fire resistant seeds, and then that had seeds that only released from fire, and these are some of the most common trees on earth.

It is my understanding that the Devonian extinction is the one that can be most readily attributed to trees, but that later events also owed largely to trees as well.

The issue is that before lignin was "a useful thing that stuff can eat" it was "a useful thing that stuff cannot eat", a plastic.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think of a religion as a social movement that plays at least the following functional roles:

• Promotion of a moral code
• Theory of how nature works
• Origin story
• Promotion of social cohesion
• Social welfare program
• Coping mechanism

Since we first learn morality--a code of conduct for safe and comfortable social interactions--by authoritarian means, i.e. from parents, caregivers, and role models, religion continues that model (in loco parentis) for individuals who become adults. Because our first experiences in life are sensations and control over our bodies and events outside of the body, it is natural to explain natural forces as controlled by other spirits. Religion provides a narrative to satisfy our curiosity as to how we came to exist and what our place is in the world. Religion also enforces a sense of public duty and altruistic behavior. Even before government welfare, religious institutions cared for the poor, the unhealthy, and those faced with personal crises.

Over time, traditional religious institutions have been eroded by the emergence of secular governments, more sophisticated understanding of natural forces, the evolution of cosmology, and their failure to help us cope adequately with modern problems. So secularism has been on the increase and religion has been suffering a decline in popularity, particularly in younger generations. I suspect that religion will make a strong comeback as the global environment degrades further. Under stress, people have a harder time coping, and religion is still the default for those in need of a coping mechanism. Many secularists tend to gravitate towards institutions like the UU church, which is more tolerant of, if not welcoming to, those who have rejected belief in deities.

But why do humans practice woo throughout their lives? Why is it even there? Why do kids believe in Santa and adults think there are creatures with super powers that defy explanation? I don't think your explanation answers that basic question.

Our species is reward/punishment based, that's simply how it has evolved, but why is the woo there? If it is just a social vehicle then lots of people are going about their lives badly misinformed because they certainly think the woo is as real as their fingernails when you and I know it isn't.

The answer to "Why religion?" must be the human brain. Given two brains, one that knows woo is imaginary and one that knows woo is real, how exactly and physically are those two brains different? They must be quantifiably different to account for the different behaviors. Science is telling us it is in the makeup of the prefontal cortex.

Religious fundamentalism is partly the result of a functional impairment in the prefrontal cortex, new study finds

Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge. On the other hand, religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism. They are fixed and rigid, which helps promote predictability and coherence to the rules of society among individuals within the group.