Scientists ask, is religion adaptive?

There are good reasons to ask. Jesse Bering of the Scientific American writes:

Given the world’s political climate, it is hardly necessary to point out why having a better scientific understanding of religious behavior is worthwhile. In fact, while we were meeting in this overly decadent tearoom, a large group protesting Israel’s recent Gaza strikes against Hamas was marching outside the hotel, demonstrating against yet another conflict at least partially fueled by head-scratching religious ideologies.

He was attending a scientific conference about foundations of religious belief and behavior. And the findings were predictably abstruse.

Afterlife was disposed of as a product of an inability to conceive of our own nonexistence. Belief in God as evolved from the cementing effect the threat of divine punishment has on groups. Church attendance as a way of establishing trust. And so on in the search for scientific meaning amid man’s discovery or higher meaning.

Like religious confessionals, this one was best when it took on a touch of hope and a touch of penance.

When Bering wrote:

At the very least, I hope that this type of research helps people get past the simplistic pigeonholing that all too often occurs when discussing science and religion—that religious people are “airheads and stubborn to science” and scientists are “cold materialists without a spiritual side.” I, for one, am a bit of both of these things.

Oh, and to answer the question, since Bering didn’t quite assert an answer, some scientists tend to presume as a matter of faith that religion is adaptive.

Because religion has survived and flourished. Whereas maladaptive practices rarely do that (survival of the fittest tells us).