{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05655403786244908, 'fraction_numerical': 0.05200095854301462, 'mean_word_length': 5.362804878048781, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why Does Religiosity Persist?

An enduring legacy of Darwinian theory, beside the small detail of offering a mechanism for how living things evolve (i.e., natural selection), is that there is no reason to advocate a designer to explain the complexity of living things (Darwin, 1859). Not only does the demand for a designer beg the question “who designed the designer,” it also overlooks the fact that systemic elements, given time, form on their own a complex structure (Dennett, 1995). A superfluity of empirical findings has established that evolution is an irrefutable fact. An avalanche of scientific discoveries, from the laws of physics to the principles of astronomy, have been consistent with the idea of a universe evolved over billions of years rather than a universe created less than 10,000 years ago (Dawkins, 2009). There is seemingly no purpose to the universe, intercessory prayer is no more effective than chance, and religions—at least in their popular form—are, it has been argued, irrational, contradictory, pathological, illusory, exploitative, and potentially dangerous (Dawkins, 2006; Freud, 1927/1961b; Harris, 2004; Hitchens, 2007; Leuba, 1925; Marx, 1843; Skinner, 1953). Yet organized religion and religiosity (i.e., beliefs and practices related to a supernatural agent) are prevalent. Worldwide, 85% of people report having at least some form of religious belief (Zuckerman, 2005), and 82% report that religion constitutes an important part of their daily life (Crabtree, 2009). In the United States, 94% of respondents express a belief in God, 82% state that religion is at least fairly important to them, and 76% consider the Bible the actual or inspired word of God (Gallup, 2009). In contrast, only 15% worldwide describe themselves as nonreligious, agnostics, or atheists (Zuckerman, 2005). If anything, atheists are strong and frequent targets of prejudice (Edgell, Gerteis, & Hartmann, 2006). Why, then, does religion persist in the face of Darwinian theory and evidence, scientific facts, secular arguments, and name-calling? Biologists, sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, philosophers, historians, and journalists have taken turns in answering this question (Atran, 2002; Berring, 2006; Blackmore, 1999; Bloom, 2005; Boyer, 2001, 2008; Burkert, 1960; Dawkins, 2006; Dennett, 2006; Durkheim, 1912/1995; Hinde, 1999; Sloan-Wilson, 2002). However, despite early interest in the topic (Allport, 1950; G. S. Hall, 1917; James, 1902; Leuba, 1925; Skinner, 1953; Starbuck, 1899), an increasing presence (Emmons & Palouzian, 2003; Exline, 2002; Kirkpatrick, 2004; Smith, McCullough, & Poll, 2003), and calls to take the study of religion seriously (Baumeister, 2002; Emmons, 1999; Gorsuch, 1988), mainstream psychology has been conspicuously absent from the party. There are at least four reasons for this absenteeism. In classical psychoanalytic theory, religion was regarded as an expression of neurosis and a defense mechanism against anxiety (Freud, 1927/1961b, 1930/1961a). As such, religion was not deemed worthy of inclusion in major theories of personality (Koltko-Rivera, 2006). Also, academic psychology (unlike most other disciplines) has assigned high prestige to the study of processes or mental entities (e.g., perception, learning, memory) and has denigrated the study of life domains (e.g., sex, food, work; Rozin, 2006). Religion qualifies as a life domain rather than a process and has thus been frowned on, if not shunned from inquiry, by the discipline in general and by leading psychology academic departments in particular. Moreover, academics are largely nonreligious, a pattern anticipated by the negative correlation between education and religiosity (Glaeser & Sacerdote, 2008). Being exposed to like-minded colleagues, academics may form the false impression that religion is a rather rare and marginal phenomenon (Stark & Bainbridge, 1985). The final reason smacks of a minor conspiracy theory. Academics may have perceived religiosity as a private matter, one that defines people with strong and passionate feelings either in favor of or against it. Thus, the majority of academics may have left