Pickup,
I agree with much of what you stated in the OP, but will offer that it is the explanatory power of religion that is biologically/psychologically valuable; not religion in and of itself, understanding that there are non-religious explanations that serve the purpose for most inquiries. For me, religion was a primitive means of providing explanation for events that were unpredictable on the scale of a single human life or whose secrets were undetectable with prevailing technology: why does the ground shake, why did the mountain explode, why did my village flood, what moves the sun across the sky, what causes the seasons to change, why did the sun darken, what causes illness, etc.? Supernatural explanations for these events were then packaged into a set of beliefs that we call religion. As we continued to provide more natural explanations for the phenomenon we encountered, the religions dissipated into myth.
We still have a biological/psychological need for causal explanation; however, religion is not required. This is the basis for wanting to make the distinction. Whether or not it is a distinction with a difference I think depends on what we are explaining. A Greek goat herder can live his entire life believing that Helios is driving the sun across the sky and no harm will come of it. If the same goat herder subscribes to a primitive notion of demon caused disease then there could very likely be problems for him and anyone he comes in contact with.
I agree with much of what you stated in the OP, but will offer that it is the explanatory power of religion that is biologically/psychologically valuable; not religion in and of itself, understanding that there are non-religious explanations that serve the purpose for most inquiries. For me, religion was a primitive means of providing explanation for events that were unpredictable on the scale of a single human life or whose secrets were undetectable with prevailing technology: why does the ground shake, why did the mountain explode, why did my village flood, what moves the sun across the sky, what causes the seasons to change, why did the sun darken, what causes illness, etc.? Supernatural explanations for these events were then packaged into a set of beliefs that we call religion. As we continued to provide more natural explanations for the phenomenon we encountered, the religions dissipated into myth.
We still have a biological/psychological need for causal explanation; however, religion is not required. This is the basis for wanting to make the distinction. Whether or not it is a distinction with a difference I think depends on what we are explaining. A Greek goat herder can live his entire life believing that Helios is driving the sun across the sky and no harm will come of it. If the same goat herder subscribes to a primitive notion of demon caused disease then there could very likely be problems for him and anyone he comes in contact with.
