[teawrecks]

You've got it backwards. Non-human species develop societies and naturally evolve arbitrary codes of ethics for how they should treat each other based on what keeps the society alive. Humans were no different, then we evolved language, and immediately began retrofitting religion to these arbitrary sets of ethics to justify them.

Brains are glorified pattern matchers, but we hadn't yet figured out how to judge the quality of a perceived pattern, so in a desperate fit of apophenia, religions naturally emerged. Eventually we stepped back and developed systematic ways of distinguishing good patterns from bad. We call this system science.

Edison said, "I didn't fail. I just found 2,000 ways not to make a lightbulb; I only needed to find one way to make it work." I see the thousands of religions that humans have come up with as those 2,000 non-light bulbs, and science as the one method that works. Now that we have a working light bulb, we can throw out those other attempts.

[dokem]

Religion helped us reach the next stage of societal evolution far beyond what existed before language. For instance, the catholic church forbidding cousins to marry is largely considered the cause of a large leap in both genetic diversity, health, intelligence, and a more expansive social network. This is just one example. Religion is just the word for the collection of knowledge about how the society should operate and I think you are getting too caught up on the metaphysical aspects. The comparison to animal societies and the idea that everything was figured out before we had written language.. hardly an idea worth engaging.

[teawrecks]

You're giving religion credit for things that other species consistently manage to do without religion (like actively avoiding inbreeding). To say religion was useful because it inadvertently generated beneficial selection pressures is like saying abusing a child is useful because it teaches a child how to defend themselves.

I'm also curious why you believe evolution to be a metaphysical concept. From my POV you're introducing unnecessary, loaded terms like "religion" to explain phenomena that are already explained without them.

"Religion" is much more than "just the word for the collection of knowledge about how the society should operate". Maybe "ethics" is a better term for that? Religion is a very loaded term. The history of religion represents an ecosystem of competing industries vying for power over each other. I agree that religion has been used as a tool to influence the behavior of human society for both good and bad, but so has advertising and marketing (bacon for breakfast, diamonds for wedding bands, KFC for Christmas, etc.). Does that make advertising religion? Is religion a form of advertising? Or are they both just superfluous terms for something more simple: evolution.

[anthk]

And now you don't need religion the same way kids don't needs fairy tale monsters so they behave well at home.