Let it go. You've moved from nincompoopery to plain assholery.

Opinions from laypeople are irrelevant.

That seems like a very shambolic poll.

Firstly. If you wish to ask questions about religion, you should start by defining "religion". since the answer will depend very much on the definition. As the answers below show, people have used several definitions.

Secondly. Science does not deal in terms such as "legitimize" and "validity", If you mean, does it indicate that such things may have occurred in the past, present or are likely to in the future, then that is what you should ask, and each separately please.

Thirdly. Several of the answers are about fact and several are about opinion, the poll is either an opinion poll, or a fact based poll about knowledge, it should not try to be both please.

Four. Number three is ambiguous, since it is possible to have both legitimate science and sham science in the same field at the same time. And indeed, it is very unlikely that you will not have both.

Five. Number five is two answers/questions in one: Is it based on "cherry picked facts"? And also. Is it "irrelevant" ? While I have to ask, "irrelevant" to what, reproductive fitness in the past, reproductive fitness now, or our understanding of religion ? How is it possible to tick or not tick this one with any degree of honest understanding ?

Six. The last is also two statements in one, and therefore ambiguous, since it is perfectly possible to agree with one and not the other.

If I did not know better, I would assume that this was a poll made up by someone, to deliberately produce muddled results, which would allow the maximum amount of reinterpretation to be placed on them. But then, I would not expect such low behavior on this site, so I can only assume that I have misunderstood. So I will tick number one, WTF, not as a comment on the science or its interpretation but only my incomprehension of the poll.

Cognitive Science of Religion?

The sheer syntactic precision, the cogent clarity and concision, and the ineluctable dialectic indubitability of the way you have crafted the option means I choose door three thanks Monty.

I do enjoy reading the articles you post on these topics.

I give as much credence to the question posed above as I would if I were to hear that Humpty Dumpty is writing a thesis on the origin of the bandersnatch.

Humpty Dumpty would maintain that as long as he believes in the bandersnatch it does exist. Indeed, if challenged he would say said that those who disagree with him are prone to confirmation bias. The mere fact that Humpty Dumpty contradicts himself and backtracks and looks for something to support his beliefs is, of course, not to be regarded as confirmation bias

There is no science of religion. Reproduction is a given. No reproduction and then no species.

When in history did humans need encouragement to fuck? Not even limiting this to their own species for fuck sake.

I can see where a certain kind of spiritualism can help one through this crap called life, but not religion. Religion is about control and power. The three Abrahamic religions have been three of the most destructive forces in this planets history. FUCK RELGION!!!

Word Salad. Yaaawwwnnnnnn....

In ONE single and simple word, CRAP.

Where is "None Of The Above"? Humans invented gods because they provided a simplistic answer to complex questions. Homo Sapiens were the first creature to have the the intelligence to contemplate their existence and mortality. Denisovan and Neanderthal were smart enough to invent deity as well. Asking questions are a sign of intelligence but I don't know how positive CSR is. I say not.

If CSR is about an anthropological objective approach to how religion impacts on human behaviour, I don't see anything wrong with that. It is a theoretical study.