> Because by this logic, polygamous religions would have overtaken monogamous ones
Would they? Are societies where children are hardly more than a number to their fathers necessarily more successful, more stable?
Unlike genetic traits, religions and other cultural traits are software, not hardware. (yes, genetic traits are information, but so is VHDL). Individuals can change their mind, adapt the ways of a different group, not possible with genes.
You point out Judaism, that one's quite an outlier because it's so unaccepting of would be believers who weren't born into it. Turns out forks that do away with that part spread quite far.
Of course. Polygamous societies can afford to lose men in wars and riskier adventures that cause the society and culture to expand (by your logic).
Again I don't accept the religions spread solely because of their features that beat out other religions in adaptation. It ignores that people may be convinced about the content of the religion, which people back then would have cared about more, rather than the features of the religion, which we modern people care about nowadays more.
Many religions are unaccepting of people born outside. Hinduism is an example. Even only one section of Hindus was actually allowed to even study the religion at all.
Like I mentioned, and which you ignored, religions like Jainism and Buddhism would have died out. What about Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, etc. caused them to die out vs something like Jainism.
Would they? Are societies where children are hardly more than a number to their fathers necessarily more successful, more stable?
Unlike genetic traits, religions and other cultural traits are software, not hardware. (yes, genetic traits are information, but so is VHDL). Individuals can change their mind, adapt the ways of a different group, not possible with genes.
You point out Judaism, that one's quite an outlier because it's so unaccepting of would be believers who weren't born into it. Turns out forks that do away with that part spread quite far.