That doesn't seem to account for the development of religion. It might be the case that most people subscribe to a particular religion because of indoctrination, but surely people subscribe to religion in general because it at least appears (without close examination) to present the simplest explanation of observed reality.
Fundamentalism -- Rigid subjectivity (aka. subjective objectivity via individual authority and self-belief; aka non-objective truth, non-universal).
What does it mean that one subscribes to "religion in general"? Does it mean one thinks "reality is complex and science does not explain it in a way I can easily understand, so now I must turn to religion to find my answers"?
Objectivity--> Subjective Experience--> Objectivity--> Subjective Experience (Without Harm - Liberalism) (With Harm - Socialism)
I would say it is two-fold. Firstly it provides an explanation for stupid people. It is a sort of bastardisation of Occam's Razor. Scientific theories, and even the scientific method seem too complex, so I will settle for the simplest explanation, which is to relate everything back to my own experience. I will personify anything remotely abstract or that may require an iota of brain-power into a neat little superstition. Secondly there are certain things science would dispute, or at least require proof of. Religion allows this to be by-passed through a sort of obnoxious faith and a proclivity to put fingers in ears and sing "lalala" over anything one does not want to hear. It removes the fear of the unknown by inventing an immortal soul and a life after death. It removes personal responsibility by allowing people to point the finger of blame at fate or God. It also allows people to behave against their natural evolved morals and justify unpleasant acts through divine impunity. I can see how people find this appealing. They are my thoughts on it anyway.
Or people who dislike the degradation of morals in favor for objective truths. However objective truths are true and subjectivity isn't, how to reconcile to keep society in a mode of feeling rather than objectives and insensitivity? Essentially, how to balance knowledge with emotion. (However must remember that knowledge always beats emotion [history] .. )
You're right, it;s very difficult to find a gullible or sceptic religious person, they're often reserved and defensive. Don't overlook the free choice bit. I personally find myself most drawn in to religion because it provides a choice for an alternative, from where one might find it comfortable to give up on insecurities, including the freedom of choice; to live in an all pervasive illusion of submission. That means putting things in perspective anymore can be neglected as part of the past, and I know somebody who is full of himself because of this. I still dislike religion in general, I do respect it though, like homosexuality. I find it difficult to find a religious person who is 100% willing to patiently listen or adapt their views to outside rational arguments, and invest some effort into a two sided discussion. Honest. I simply respect the clear waters of the soul as they are, can be complicated, full of questions, but not colored by anything then reason, as far as a distraction isn't perused. Just being my fetterless self has provided me the most angelic, sacred wisdom and insights. Yes, there's a mystical force in life, but why not just let it be. I'd say it's a weakness in itself to feel the need to ascertain anything derived from one thing. The one thing I can relate everything back to is the one thing that produced me. My mother's exit way. And it allows for people to take responsibility of acts that seem unrelated at first sight. Religion is not religion if it didn't provide to alter one's worldview all-pervasively. But it dumbs down ones creativity. It's very likely that finding an answer to all questions in life is numbing and even makes one forget what it's all about, but that's religion as a bad habit. Healhty religious people are just healthy people who think about their religion the same way they would think about the human heart; conceptual; agreeable; in perspective; and decide they feel comfortable with the struggle that is accompanied by the formula. Other people keep hopping from one view to another because it is admittedly difficult to seek salvation for their unexplained habits and qualities. It is proof that religion is just imperfect and hypocritical, labeling anyone who have difficulty accepting it's parameters or relinquishing their locomotive logic. I accept death and don't fear it because I fear life. I don't fear life because death is it's salvation.
I think what you say is right of some religious people, but very far from all. Firstly, even in the case of the most science-denying fundamentalists, you need to allow the possibility that they're not stupid, merely under-informed. Secondly, there are more nuanced forms of religion that are more intellectually credible. One of the things that became clear when I covered philosophy of science and philosophy of religion at university is that the popular debate, with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris on one side, Alister McGrath and William Lane Craig on the other, is incredibly simplistic and superficial. There is still real intellectual debate about the existence of God going on, but that's not it. A few years ago there was a survey of major living philosophers that found that about 80% did not believe in God, about 20% did. Those in the 20% were certainly not stupid nor denying the significance of science, but were engaged with genuine issues with philosophy of science and of religion. Of course, they're not likely to be fundamentalists! A more recent survey of educational attainment in different Christian denominations found that members of denominations that tended towards dogmatism and fundamentalism tended to have poor academic attainment, and atheists tended to have much higher academic attainment. But those in groups that tended more towards religious liberalism (or at least permitted it) such as Anglicans (Episcopalians) and Quakers tended to have even higher academic attainment. What all that comes down to is that religion is not one single, intellectually implausible, thing. It's a very wide range of things, with a very wide range of credibility. If a writer simply takes the most implausible extreme and shows it to be implausible, only their friends are likely to be impressed.
