[alexey-salmin]

Well these "answers", whether absurd or not, were good enough for societies to live by them and survive for millennia.

Furthermore, even though you can argue that science can give some answers, it definitely under-delivers on questions like "what is good and evil" or "why you should have kids". Some of those are covered by the "humanism" neoreligion, some of them aren't. This whole experiment is very modern, it's not clear what are long-term survival rates of societies that completely give up on religions in a classical sense. It could turn out that societies that believe in nonsense have an edge over the ones that don't, after all this matches our experience all the way up until the 20th century.

[kmonsen]

I agree science doesn’t give good answers for good and evil, for me religion gives even worse answers. For example the Bible is clearly in favor of slavery as an institution. Other religions like Buddhism are for me better.

The scary part is that there may not be a good or evil, and the answers we have are just made up stuff.

[alexey-salmin]

Slavery made a lot of economic sense prior to the industrial revolution. If you consider "good and evil" as a set of norms that help society to thrive (as in outcompete other societies for resources) then it's not surprising that slavery went from good to bad as the technology progressed.

That's the only remotely rational view of it that I'm aware of. "Remotely" because without some kind of religion it doesn't follow that outcompeting other societies or survival in general is "good".

So in the end yes, I do believe "good and evil" are made up. Luckily, it's not a bad thing.

[kmonsen]

I do think it’s possible that God and evil are a set of norms that help society (or actually their leaders) thrive, but are presented as universal values.

I think there is a huge distinction to what it’s good for the average person in society vs what is good for the rulers, and it is unclear which one of those you mean.

Most religions are here to support the rulers.

[alexey-salmin]

> I think there is a huge distinction to what it’s good for the average person in society vs what is good for the rulers, and it is unclear which one of those you mean.

I mean it in the most brutal sense, maximizing replication and persistence of religion bearers (you can say average person in society).

In a short term religions can benefit current rulers, but in a long term selection must be geared towards survival of societies and cultures as a whole, otherwise they wouldn't have lived into the modern age.