Whatever you think of the question of God or Gods, religion is a real thing, for good or ill. In the quest for More and Better Democrats the question of fewer and less evil religious nutters has a prominent place. But does that mean trying to destroy all religion, or accepting that some religion is beneficial, and working with it?
In The Varieties of Religious Experience psychologist and Pragmatist philosopher William James set out to survey the psychological phenomena of religion as they were known more than a century ago. Both religion and science can agree in principle on the standard set by Jesus.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Thus James set out to attempt an evaluation of their fruits in a non-dogmatic, non-theological, scientific way, which many of the churches concerned would of course not agree with.
Many of the particular ills of the modern Religious Right, such as the movements known as Fundamentalism, Dominionism, Theonomy and "Creation Science" had not been invented in their current forms in the time of William James, but their seeds had been plainly visible in Southern Baptist support of slavery and then Jim Crow, and denial of evolution. Biblical literalism and running societies on the basis of religious law are both of ancient origin, as are many other ills associated with one or another religion of ancient times.
Does religious theory (theology in theistic religions, or Abhidharma in Buddhism), practice, law, or specific events like radical conversions make people behave better? Sometimes, up to a point, with radically different evaluations according to the radically different criteria applied. I shall explain further below the Orange Cloud of Unknowing.