What's not to like?

[MargotQuaker]

I would claim there is nothing in religion which is deplorable and essential-- hence no final reason for anyone to reject it.

What it provides is a basis for idealism, and for always looking for the Bigger Picture. It contributes to one's own happiness, by minimising the impact of private griefs-- not by saying they will all be fixed in Heaven, but by calling attention to the fact that the world is still beautiful and others have immense happiness while I myself have grief.

It does not require superstition or tribalism. As far back as the oldest bits of the Old Testament, the Jews were required to treat with kindness the "stranger within their gates". It does not compete with science on science's terms. The phenomena of religion will eventually get a scientfic explanation. Religion and science share the obligation not to make out that one knows when one doesn't.

Some people find the whole idea of worship unwelcome; but they too can spend an hour with others open-mindedly trying to see what it is that matters most-- and this is worship. And the stories of religion, while one has to treat them with caution, amount to a source of inspiration and rejoicing.

Yes Johanna it is a speculative view but it is one that explains the existance of religion which was a question in the OP.
But if we examine this view we would ask the following;
Why do almost all human societies have a religion of some sort? - in the absense of religion societies often invent one.
Why do all religions have similar characteristics despite the fact that many have developed independently of each other?
This suggests to me that humans have an innate need for religious belief that is unrelated to the existence (or not) of a God. As I believe we are essentially animals, this need must have evolved along with other traits.

Some psychologists have speculated that humans are the one animal that has a need to believe. As to the similarities between religions it would appear that humans, as far as we know, are the one species that has precognition of mortality and the only animal with the intellectual equipment to develop abstract thoughts which are then expressed through a highly sophisticated form of communication.

Similarities probably occur because all early humans needed to appease the forces upon which human life depended in order to survive. With the development of pastoralism religions became more complex and of course once there were settled communities and the beginnings of agriculture, the religions develop farther still.

This can clearly be seen in the portrayals of the Israelite god(s) in the barbarous early sections of the OT and the deity that is later referenced.

Johanna - it seems from what you have said that we are mainly in agreement. Your comments about the capacity of the human race do look a little like the 'human exceptionalism' that is a central tenet of most religious beliefs (the idea that we as humans are not really like other animals). Could it be that we do not really know very much about the intellectual capacities of other species and that they may actually be a little more intelligent than we would like to think?

ElBurro - I think we are in agreement.

However, as to your comment about human exceptionalism" I did write "as far as we know"!

Yes - not meaning to be offensive. IMO Human exceptionalism is central to most religious views of the world and is taken as given by most on this forum.

I did read (in Super Freakonomics) about an experiment done on a species of monkey (I think) where they were able to learn about using money to buy food, price discrmination (changed buying behavour when prices changed) and resorted to theft and prostitution when the opportunity arose. Perhaps we should not be too surprised about this as we have fairly recent common ancestors. Science is only just starting to investigate this sort of thing, it often turns out that animal behavour is more sophisticated than we (arrogantly) assume.