In the countenance of the enormous form of religions, almost every person in the world believes in the comparable belongings: the endurance of strength, a life after death, sensations, and the blissful formation of the universe.
As the universe clarifies its confidentiality and immensity and magnificence in front of us, the expression “God” becomes more important slightly than not as much of. He believes the universe is not neutral, and ethics are not illusory, and life is not vacant. A universe that is breathing is the “ground of our being.” But the religious realism of that power He calls God.
One conservative advance to the source of religious assurance begins with the observation that it is not easy to be a human being. There is a peccadillo all around; everybody we love will pass away; and soon we ourselves will pass away. Furthermore, regularly and most likely nastily or quickly. For all but a spoilt and providential little life actually is malicious, uneven, and small. And if our life has some better sense, it is hardly comprehensible.
Religions can from time to time carry out all these possessions, and it would be unrealistic to refuse that this in part explains their endurance. Positively, at times theologians employ the preceding point of view to make a container for why we are hypothetical to consider: if one requirement for motive, sense, and endless life, there is nowhere to go away but on the way to God.
One difficulty with this analysis is that, as the cognitive scientist Steven Pinker reminds us, we don't classically get comfort from proposals that we don't already consider being true. Hungry people don't applaud themselves up by believing that they just had a huge food. Heaven is a comforting idea only insofar as people believe such a place exists; it is this faith that a sufficient theory of religion has to clarify in the first place.
Also, the religion-as-opiate theory fits best with the monotheistic religions most recognizable to us. However what about those people (many of the religious people in the world) who do not believe in an all-wise and just God? Every culture believes in religious beings, but they are often stupid or malicious. Many religions merely don't deal with metaphysical or teleological questions; gods and forebear feelings are called upon only to help cope with such normal problems as how to get ready food and what to do with a corpse—not to make clear the Meaning of It All. As for the comfort of heaven, fairness, or deliverance, again, it exists in some religions but by no means all. (In fact, even those religions we are most common with are not always comforting.
The fraternity theory also clarifies why religions are so cruel for those who do not share the trust, reserving particular anger for apostates. This is clear in the Old Evidence, in which "a jealous God" issues commands such as:
"Should your brother, your mother's son, or your son or your daughter or the wife of your bosom or your companion who is like your own self incite you in secret, saying Let us go and worship other gods' ... you shall surely kill him. Your hand shall be against him first to put him to death and the hand of all the people last. And you shall stone him and he shall die, for he sought to thrust you away from the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. —Deuteronomy 13, 7:11
This theory elucidates almost the whole thing about religion—except the spiritual part. Clearly that ceremony and sacrifices can bring people mutually, and it may well be that a group that does such things have benefits over one that does not. However, it is not clear why a religion has to be concerned. Why are gods, souls, a next world, miracles, heavenly formation of the cosmos, and so on brought in? The theory doesn't clarify what we are most involved in, which is faith in the paranormal.