Eliminating Religion?

[Kromoh]

One might make the analogous argument and say that there is nothing which crime provides that can't be found somewhere else. Sloganeered succinctly, crime does not really pay. But one immediately sees why the slogan must frequently be seen to be untrue from the perspective of the would be criminal. The reason is crime often affords a realistic chance of providing gratification to the perpetrator while shifting the cost either to someone else not benefitting and/or passing the cost down the line in such a way as to worsen the overall good. That is something which anything that actually better than crime can not, more or less by definition, match. So to the unscrupulous or the very confused, honest work is unimpressive, and crime definitely can pay.

The exact same reasoning applies to religion. There is something which religion can offer which rationalism, by definition, can not. That is the opportunity to enjoy both the emotional and material delights of satisfying or self-serving falsehoods while passing the cost of indulging in such delusions onto someone else, or kicking the cost down the line. So to the morally corrupt, or the very confused, intellectual rigor is unsatisfying, and religion definitely can pay, at the expense of someone else.

Every xtian attempt to hamper stem cell research is an act of theft from those who would have benefited from the research. Every xtian attempt to trumpets biblical cosmology over diligent scientific pursuit of knowledge is an act of theft from the collective power of humanity. But just as theft does often pay those who commit it, so too religion pays those who would spread ignorance to further it. Crime will never die because it pays, neither will religion for the same reason.

I don't think the analogy you used is valid, basically because it adds in another variable, that of quick gain versus effortful gain, which isn't present in religion versus rationality. Seriously, to what good serves a simpler explanation, if it is wrong? Take Santa Claus as the perfect example. Santa Claus is used by parents to educate children, but it's not something that can't be done in other ways.

Here between us, I don't think someone willfully chooses religion over rationality because they think it does them better, or makes them feel better - people are only religious because they are taught to be. But if that were the case, and people really did choose their religion instead of beign indoctrinated, then you would be right in saying that religion would be more acceptable - as acceptable as any other choice. However, most people don't choose at all - people have a religion because they were educated and indoctrinated in such ways, and still hardheadedly defend their religion to death. As much as you may dislike it, humans are the product of genes and medium, and I don't think religion is genetically determined.

Notice, though, that even if whatever reasoning did make religion acceptable, it still wouldn't make religion reasonable - it would only be like knowing you're wrong but sticking to your being wrong, aka blissful ignorance. Now, if blissful ignorance is acceptable is yet another layer of discussion...

Lastly, know that it is unwise to try to justify religion by its side-effects, however miraculous they are, you know. Just as unwise it is to try to justify crime by the gain it provides the criminal. All in all, I am yet to see anything that justifies the existence of religion. Why stick to a false explanation if a true explanation is just in front of you?