Why, in our modern times, where the past 150 years have produced or
uncovered more scientific knowledge than perhaps the previous 1,000
years combined, does nearly the entire worldwide human population
continue to rely on superstition and mythology -- aka religion -- to
answer many of the questions that humans have yet to explain on their
own?

Using Christianity as an example, its believers rely on events that
allegedly occured during a 30-year period more than 2,000 years ago.
The Old Testament, of course, is much older. The stories, fables,
myths in both books suggest they really are a "handbook" for how
humans should live their lives -- essentially a constitution for any
civilized society.

There certainly were incentives for ensuring society followed these
rules, whether to outlaw the killing of another man, keeping
husband-wife harmony in place, or discouraging the birth of babies out
of wedlock.

Of course, politics was behind some of this, especially during the
writing of the New Testament in Roman times. Religion is an effective
way to soothe the masses and devote their energies elsewhere, instead
of complaining to the emperor about high food costs.

Given the antiquity of the Bible, why do so many people continue to
read it literally rather than appreciate it simply as classic
literature that, like all classical literature, can instill timeless
wisdom to its readers? Zealouts often respond in similar ways: The
Bible is the word of God and we take it literally and on faith. There
is no question about God's existence, they would say. I have my faith.

Why are there not more efforts afoot to help the world see religion
for what it basically is: A hard-wired, evolutionary biological
instrument to keep humans sane and as anxiety-free as possible as they
look at death (and at much younger ages back then)?

Sadly, in the end, religion simply becomes a self-serving charade for
many, as they selfishly want to enjoy their eternity in Heaven (where,
for some, many willing virgins await them) rather than in Hell.

Dear Tod, 

This is a very interesting question. Many observers expected that with
modernity, the religious dimension would gradually disappear. However,
it had not. Some nations are more religious than others, the United
States leading as one of the most religious nations on earth, despite
being also one of the most modernised ones (it should be mentioned,
that religion plays a lesser role in European public life as it is in
the United States).

There are several answers, given by sociologists of religion, to the
question you've asked. First of all, you might have heard the Marxian
notion, describing religion as "Opiate of the Masses". Classical
Marxian analysis sees religion, or religious belief, as derivatives of
the cultural hegemony of the leading classes - using religion to
abstract the masses' mind of their deprivation, discrimination and
exploitation. Religion, in this view, is a tool. A tool by the ruling
elite to control the people, to gain legitimacy and to repress any
revolutionary thought against the current social order.

[See: 
Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February, 1844: at Baylor University
Website, <http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html>]

Amanda Udis-Kessler's essay on "MARX AND WEBER ON RELIGION" mentions: 
"Opium, of course, provides only temporary relief for suffering, and
does so by blunting the senses.  In making suffering bearable, Marx
argues, opium (and religion) actually can actually be said to be
contributing to human suffering by removing the impetus to do whatever
is necessary to overcome it ? which, for Marx, is to relinquish
religion and turn to revolutionary politics. Hamilton (1995: 82-3)
points out the ultimate practical outcome of religion?s palliative
function, from a Marxian perspective: ?Religion offers compensation
for the hardships of this life in some future life, but it makes such
compensation conditional upon acceptance of the injustices of this
life.?
(SOURCE: Amanda Udis-Kessler, 2001, "MARX AND WEBER ON RELIGION",
Grinnell College, <http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/soc/f01/soc295-02/marx_weber.html>).

There are other explanations that rely on the premises that religion
serves as a compensatory factor to understand unexplainable aspects of
our life. Religion serves as a psychological - but also as a
collective - compensator for the hardships of life and in order to
understand and explain the unexplained. If the Marxian analysis is
basically focused on the role that religion plays in the capitalist
repression, other explanations (Freud, for example) centralise on
psychological explanations.

Religion also serves to provide people with identity and sense of
belonging. The French sociologist Emile Durkheim wrote, before
theories about the construction of identity became popular, that
"religious beliefs and practices concerning the sacred sustain social
integration and form the matrix for our central categories of
thinking" (SOURCE: Donald A. Nielsen, "THEORY", in: Encyclopaedia of
Religion and Society 1997 edited by William H. Swatos, Jr., at the
Hartford Institute for Religion Research Website,
<http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Theory.htm>).

The sociologist Thomas Luckmann checked this question exactly, in
relation to the flourishing religious beliefs in the United States and
other countries. In his opinion, there was actually never a real
"secularisation" of the society, as the need in belief and in as
holistic "world view" is strong as ever in a complexing world as the
modern one. However, form have changed and now religion, instead of
being an "institutionalised", state-sponsored religion, religion is
privatised and even "sold" as capitalist merchandise. Religion, in
this aspect is not contrary to modernity, it changes with the time.

These are only partial answers: the sociology of religion is yet to
produce a convincing, all-embracing, explanation on religious life in
the modern (or even "post-modern") world, and maybe there isn't just
one answer to this phenomenon. It could be said, that people convert,
because they seek meaning, identity, community and a holistic
world-view. People stay religious because they would like to preserve
their identity, their world, and their community. Of course, people
are subjected to structural conditions: the stress that the modern
society produces, the alienation that ones feel in this society,
manipulation by economic, political and societal forces that lad them
to religious life or maintain them there.


Further Reading
===============
Religion, Modernity and Post modernity (eds.: Paul Heelas, David
Martin and Paul Morris). [A book]

Christian Faith and Postmodernity
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/Xnty_Pmism.html 
An Index of WWW Resources

God Is Dead: Secularization in the West (Religion in the Modern World)
- by Steve Bruce - Bruce claims in this book that "Modernization has
caused religion to change in such ways that it has lost its social
significance. As Bruce argues, "Individualism, diversity and
egalitarianism in the context of liberal democracy undermine the
authority of religious beliefs," making belief in God a personal
option rather than a compelling necessity. Opponents to the
secularization argument (chiefly Rodney Stark) point to the strength
of religion in America." (SOURCE: Amazon review,
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0631232753/qid=1079180234/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-9868032-1220767?v=glance&s=books>).

The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics
by Peter L. Berger (Editor), Jonathan Sacks (Editor), David Martin
(Contributor), Tu Weiming (Editor), George Weigel (Editor), Grace
Davie (Contributor), Abdullahi A. An-Naim (Editor)
Read interesting reviews on Amazon: 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802846912/qid=1079180234/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/104-9868032-1220767?v=glance&s=books>.

There is actually a lot of material about this issue, and it is hard
to embrace all of it.

This is an answer I recently gave, where the issue of "why people
*don't* believe" have risen:
How does one enter heaven? Who is God? 
<https://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=312705> 

As for research fro this answer, I am a postgraduate of sociology of
religion, but I have also searched for some terms mentioned here.

I hope this answered your question and provided some perspective as of
why people continue to believe in the Bible. However, I do hope that
others would add (in the comment section) their own personal
perspective. It might not be a researched answer like mine, but I
think you might be interested to read personal ideas, as it seems that
your question is also a polemic one: you want to hear from a believer
(which I am not) why they believe.

Please contact me if you need any clarification on this answer before you rate it.

Hi Toddwc. Your question and comments mixes the Bible with virgins in
heaven. The latter applies only to the beliefs of Islam. Point two
is..Who defined how we should live our lives. The Bible simply sets
out the rules, that if we follow them, we can live in peace. It is
because we have failed to follow those rules that we are in our
present woeful situation of non-peace. The Bible says that those rules
were set by God. Every character mentioned in the Bible either obeyed
God or did not. Those who did benefited greatly [Noah and his family
survived the flood. The rest did not][Genesis chapter 7] . An example
of one who did not, was Nimrod [ Genesis 10;8].."He displayed himself
a mighty hunter IN OPPOSITION to God. One who complied with God`s laws
was Abram/Abraham. How Abraham was blessed by God for obedience is at
Genesis 12;2..And I shall make a great nation out of you and I shall
bless you  and I will make your name great, and prove yourself a
blessing,3.  And I will bless those who bless you, AND HIM THAT CALLS
DOWN EVIL UPON YOU I SHALL CURSE. God is not all-loving all the time
if we disobey. There is a price to pay. Is there any other book from
antiquity that has survived..No...Why? God promised that His word
would be protected. Deuteronomy 4;2..You must not add to the word that
I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it. Only an
eternally existing God could back up this requirement.

First, I did not mix the Bible with Islam. The entire question deals
with religion in general.

Second, you have little proof that those stories were true. If it was
God's bible, he must have had many people working for them as they
decided which books to include and which to exclude.

I'm happy to quote stories -- page and line number -- from Hawthorne,
Poe, Hemingway, Tolstoy and others when debating issues of the day.
But my quoting them doesn't make it any more possible that the fiction
is fact.

I also question your assertion that no other book from antiquity has
survived. We have many books originally written in Greece and Rome.
Some of them sit next to my copy of the Bible.

for Toddwc; Your question did mention both the old testament and
virgin though. I have only the Bible to answer your queries. But it
really is up to you to read them. You do have the choice whether to
accept what is written or reject it. Firstly, in my case, I follow
what second Timothy 2;15 says...Do your utmost to present yourself
approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, HANDLING THE
WORD OF TRUTH ARIGHT. And what do I handle..Second Timothy 3;14-17.
Where verse 16 says.."All scripture is inspired of God, and beneficial
for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for
disciplining in righteousness, 17. That the man of God may be fully
competent, completely equipped for every good work". Titus 1;2 says
that God cannot lie. If the Bible is God`s word to us, then it must be
true. A Book that promotes Love cannot be all bad. Hebrews 3;12 warns"
Beware!, Brothers, for fear there should ever develop in any one of
you a wicked heart, lacking faith by drawing AWAY from the living God.
The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies relating to ancient days, [
the Jews freed by Cyrus, a non jew but named in the Bible]about Jesus
[ Proverbs 22-36..written before Jesus was born, written by King
Solomon ]  and about man`s future.  Psalms 46;9...He is making wars to
cease to the extremity of the earth. This is yet to be fulfilled. And
Psalm 37; 9,10,11 and 12 tell of the bleak future of those who take no
notice. My own aim is expressed at Psalm 40;8.." To do your will, Oh!
my god, I have delighted, and your law is within my inward parts". The
philosophical writers, Poe, Hemingway and Tolstoy, ALL NOW DEAD,
cannot offer me what God has at Revelation 20;4. No more pain, sorrow
DEATH or mourning. God told John at verse 5 " Write, because these
words are faithful and true.

Quoting the Bible to prove your points is a circular argument.

Hi Toddwc..back again..This is where faith comes in. The definition,
also stated in the bible [Hebrews 11;1] Faith is the assured
[guaranteed] expectation [hope] of things hoped for [wanted] , the
evident demonstration [actual happening] of realities [things you can
see and touch] though not beheld [ hasn`t happened yet]. Its a
readiness to believe something. And when the Bible, through various
writers, state various geographical truths, like the shape of the
earth seen from space..Job 25;7..He is stretching out the north over
the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing. Verse 10..He has
described a circle upon the face of the waters... A good description
of the curved watery surface of the earth. Isaiah 40;22..There is One
who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which
are as grasshoppers. Another describes the earths water cycle..Isaiah
55;10. For just as the pouring rain, and the snow, from the heavens,
and does not return to that place...unless it actually saturates the
earth and makes it produce and sprout...Its not a geographical texr
book, but it does state the truth about our earth. Why then would it
mis-lead us about God`s purpose. It is His word to us.

Thanks for the geography and science lessons. There are many facts in
the Harry Potter books, too, but that still doesn't mean I can fly
around on broomsticks.

Hi again toddwc. Hope you dont mind me getting back to you. but the
Potter books were written by a person with imagination, which God gave
us anyway. What would be amazing if that 40 different people over the
course of 1600 years, all wrote books with the same THEME. That`s what
the Bible consists of. The bible warns us of the outcome of those
using spiritistic practises. These are backed by Satan`s powers.
Ordinary men are unable to perform true magic tricks, but Satan can
and He makes it seem as though it is men that are doing so. A bible
example is in Exodus chapter 7, when Moses was asking Pharoah to let
the Hebrews free. In verses 10,11 and 12, Aaron threw down his rod and
it became a snake,through God`s power, not his own. The "Magic
Practising" priests of Egypt, were able to do the same, with Satan`s
power, BUT, God being greater in  power, "Aaron`s rod swallowed up
their rods". In verses 20 to 22, the priest`s tricks again matched
Moses, [ the river of blood]. Again in chapter 8 verses 6 & 7, the
priests matched the plague of frogs. But in verses 17 and 18, they
could not match the plague of gnats. Then gadflies. Then a "heavy
pestilence" on the livestock of the Egyptians ONLY. The bible says it
did not affect the livestock of the Hebrews. Surely everyone had the
same type of cattle and sheep. The separation shows it was not just a
natural pestilence or disease that just happened to strike Egypt at
that time. It was the hand of God.
What I have done here is to simply point out the scriptures. Proverbs
9;7&8 warn ME..."He that is correcting the ridiculer is taking to
himself, dishonour. and he that is giving reproof to someone wicked, a
defect in him [ME]. 9. Do not reprove a ridiculer, that he may not
hate you. Give a reproof to a wise person and he will love you [ agape
love that is] . the fear of God is the start of wisdom [Prov.9;10]

An interesting question and a well-reasoned answer.

Perhaps it would be worth doing further research on the simple answer
of "apathy"...?

Ignoring the relative merits of whether there is or is not a God
figure so that the debate does not get leveraged down that pathway...

There are possibly many reasons from the point of view of a society
why a past belief would be retained in the face of changes to levels
of understanding and unwinding of great mysteries.

However, my carefully unresearched initial thought would be that most
people would continue to act this way for the following reasons:

1. Their parents have told them that they should
2. Their friends or peer group have reinforced that viewpoint
3. They have never been taught to think outside of those boundaries
4. It is easier to adopt a black and white position than it is to
think through the difficulties of the grey.

To test this, simply think through the demographics of particular
religious beliefs...

The major religions tend to be gathered in particular areas where they
have fostered after some initial conversion process (whether by the
sword, colonisation or simple conversion by discussion or
imitation)...

If there was more to it than that then it would be reasonable to see a
larger level of diversity within geographical boundaries.

It would also be reasonable to see a changing level of participation
according to advances in understanding or as a result of logical
debate...

Sadly, neither appears to occur nor does it appear that such a process is likely.

Therefore, continuous scientific advancement or adacemic understanding
are of themselves unlikely to lead to a larger proportion of people
moving away from any particular religious belief.

Reading through the comments and replies thus far, I'm curious, what
scientific knowledge are you referring to that we have obtained in the
last 150 years can be pointed to when it comes to debunking the "myth"
of religion, specifically Christianity.  When one says "religion" one
can't help but envisage an onslaught of stuffy traditions and
certifiable myths, as you rightly point out, however, what makes
Christianity unique among "religion" is that its Holy Book has been
historically verified using the same scientific knowledge you so
adamantly insist discredits it, its internal prophetic accuracy has
a record of 100% satisfaction which would put even the likes of Madam
Cleo to shame, its future analysis of world events only becomes truer
with each passing day (i.e. Middle East situation w/ peripheral events
all coming together to fulfill the remaining prophecy yet to be
completed), and its Savior's grave is EMPTY.  So again, I ask, what
scientific knowledge do we have that makes the Bible less true today
than when it was written?

You accuse the believers in Christ of relying on events that occurred
during a 30 year time spam over 2000 years ago.  Do historic events
somehow become more false as time goes by?  Will WWI and WWII simply
become epic novels of mythical battles given 1500 years or so?  I
don't know what to tell you Todd, if one of your major criticisms of
Christianity is that Christ was born too long ago for your liking, I
would hope you at least realize the juvenile logic your case is
resting on.  There is not a historian worth their title today that
would deny Jesus Christ was a real man that really lived 2000 years
ago (although that is all many seem to get right), so if you are
implying that because Jesus lived 2000 years ago nothing He said,
taught, commanded applies is a very weak indeed.  Jesus Christ spoke
about Spiritual matters which transcend time and therefore, do not
expire or become obsolete with the passing of time.  Jesus' emphasis
was on eternal salvation/damnation and other truths that affect every
living soul, not the present-day economy of ancient Palestine so
exactly what parts of Christ's wisdom should we check the expiration
date on and throw out?

Further down in your exchange, you accuse the commenter of having
little proof the Bible's stories are true.  There is a good deal of
proof the Bible's stories are true, I would be happy to go over each
with you either on this board or through email directly for more in
depth and organized correspondence.  You then go on to say that God
must have had many people working for Him if the Bible is His.  Umm, I
guess so.  If the Almighty God can create a universe and populate it,
why wouldn't he be able to inspire the recording of His word for us to
live by?  Questioning the probability of a Greater Force by using an
instance of a lesser event is not logical.

Next, I don't understand why you would use the example of fiction not
becoming fact simply because you can quote the fiction.  If you
believe that to be a valid argument against a Christian citing verse
references in the Scriptures, you have missed the whole point!  The
ability to organize text into searchable snippets is hardly the
evidence a Christian relies on to confirm the Bible is truth.

You point out that quoting the Bible to prove points (that the Bible
is true, I'm assuming) is "a circular argument".  It might be viewed
that way from one who does not recognize the authority of Scripture,
so I'll respond to that in this way . . . it is no more circular than
you're discounting Christianity as mythical by using your own a priori
opinions seen here:

"Why . . . does nearly the entire worldwide human population continue
to rely on superstition and mythology . . ."

"The stories, fables, myths in both books . . ."

"Why are there not more efforts afoot to help the world see religion
for what it basically is: A hard-wired, evolutionary biological
instrument to keep humans sane and as anxiety-free as possible as they
look at death . . ."

". . . religion simply becomes a self-serving charade . . ."

You did not reference one tangible scrap of evidence to support your
predetermined opinion of Christianity I can turn to if your goal is to
dissuade me from believing it is true.  So to answer your question,
perhaps for this reason among many others, so many people today,
praise to God, are not being "cheated through philosophy and empty
deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic
principles of the world, and not according to Christ." - Col. 2:8.

Much of what was nut shelled in this response can be greatly expanded
on should you be sincere.