Will the church change its doctrine under the new pope or in todays droping numbers

As the illegitimate son of JC (the one he never speaks of. The bible, thousands of words and not a mention of me or others, talk about the unfairness of PR !) .... what do you think that being a god means one needs to be celibate? or 1000's of years between side nooky? Cripes! that's a bit ...well fundamentalist doncha think?

Well I mean all the other gods were involved in a lot of homo sapien female exploitation Odin, Thor, (Norse); Zeus um Hercules et al were at it like Aussie Pygmy Possums. you've heard of him but have you heard of Examinator half god extraordinaire? No! it's the attic for me and denial ....gees I feel like the man in the iron mask!

Then there's, the Hindus well, I mean turning into a buck deer so he could "perve" on a chick .... then he ejaculated in the water at her beauty! Then the gold digging bitch got pregnant ... welfare single teen age mom and all that .... yarder yarder... Ganesh . his wife does a hissy and well lops the kid's head off, as you do . he was saved by sicking on an elephant head instead ... an elephant head!... hey ask the elephant? No! ( did you know that's why the Indian elephant has two nostrils not one like the African with one ) You'd think they'd know that elephants are endangered species ! especially if their gonna go around beheading their illegitimate children then replace their heads with elephants ... Duh!...well you get the picture.

Nonsense aside, the above whimsical romp through comparative religions show a number of points as to why Voltaire wrote "if God didn't exist man would have to invent him"! For a number of reasons

Some people simply need the symmetry of the two column accounting system in life ( both sides must equal each other.) issue one side explanation the other... God is simply the (fudge) balancing factor. And others it supplies a sense identity, community and even importance particularly the otherwise dispossessed or marginalised (e.g. Jews , early Christians, Black slaves in America and even the poor poor whites of the south (called red necks the origin of which was so poor they couldn't afford slaves so they had to work in the fields so their neck were red [sunburn]... aint capitalist mores wunderful!). Hence religion becomes part of man made culture .

If one looks at humans nature from a biologic behavioural sense one can't but observe that they are very diverse in behaviour and intensities there of . Over all, despite their protestations ( for specialness) they are still fundamentally animals with all the hard wired instincts. In the human context it seems to me all that is different is the the different ways in which they express in themselves. One of their primary instincts is survival. One aspect of this I would argue is the variations of fight or flight reflex. Like us is good, known to us acceptable, not like us a threat. One other expression of the survival instinct drives *some * humans to explore, investigate etc. and the majority not. Even those who follow the explorers tend to make the new environments more like those they left...old techniques mind sets. i.e. The new world settler both sought to 'civilise' the natives. If there is a more problematical intention I've yet to find it. And they tried unsuccessfully tried to grow familiar crops . The first colony in Virginia was a monumental disaster and had it not been for the largess of the 'Indians'(sic) the puritans might have gone the same way. Given what followed it's arguable that it's a pity they didn't.

On a distribution curve of this expression of the instinct the explorers/investigators would be in the standard deviations furtherest the from the mean approximately 15% of the whole. Where as the staunchest non adventurous would be at the other extreme. In short it's part of the hard wiring fundamental to survival instinct of life.

At this point it's apposite to delve into where the ever increasing complexity comes from. We all know about genes etc but what is less commonly understood is that very few genes (I suspect none) actually has a sole purpose. e.g. A pure white cat / dog with blue eyes is invariably deaf . Hair color, hearing ? WT ?

If you want a gentle wolf /fox by selective breeding you get floppy ears (Russian studies over 30 years )

Also in evolution there is a function called convergent Evolution where two totally different animals from different Taxonomic families or above arrive at a similar solutions for similar problems albeit from slightly different pathways. Clearly the functioning of genes is far more complex than commonly thought .

Conditions in-vitro can also effect the expression of the genes of the offspring . In some species temperature defines gender. Hormone imbalances in the mother can cause a myriad of issues.

To add to further complexity to the mix the fathers actions years earlies can vary alter the expression of genes in unexpected ways a recent study shows that If a male smokes before puberty ( the sperm creation setting chemical setting period) it can have developmental (weight) impacts of the next two generations. i.e. If your grandpa smoked before puberty impact the way * your * genes express .... obesity. This is effect is called epigenetics.( http://www.epigeneticsandchromatin.com/)

You want more ? Well then we factor in the variation the impact of conditioning, environment thought broadly to account for up to 30-40 % of the end personality.

Much of what human behaviour is in fact explainable by various expressions of these instincts and their under lying genes et al in ways that are practical functional impossible to comprehend (predict, test or repeat) complexity of variables, options and combinations. The sheer number of binary options collectively give the impression in most minds to be analogue, as in a continuum of intensities as appears in statistical bell curve distributions. This is opposed to the reality that what is actually being measured is a progression specific binary one off observations (on or off) .

In essence the point that I'm making is that because of this ever increasing complexity it stands to reasonable deduction that there is so many variable and combinations to the ways those hard wired 'instincts' express themselves in the individual . It isn't that far from the truth to say than in a multiplicity of ways some small and others large we, in fact all creatures are truly individually one off.

There are two relevant corollary to the specifics of why god

The need for 'god' has little to do with intellect per se.

secondly to answer your comment the need is emotional ( and or conditioning) regardless of intellect or logical acceptance that god is pure mythology. This is why the biggest growth area for churches is the 3rd would. i.e. most Catholics and Episcopalians (C of E) are in Africa and South of the US .

The catholic Church is like all Corporations' first concern is it's own longevity and is a massive vector to personal ambitions and power.

See also the rise of cults.

There is a stark correlation between knowledge of reality and fervent need for the god effect.

Dawkins thinks and talks like a biologist rather that a neuro-psycologist or behaviourist, even an anthropologist. The problem with science today is best illustrated by AGW (and the inter specialist rivalry i.e. geologists are often the most vociferous critics) In truth most big issues need what is practically speaking impossible today. The old fashioned Polymath to draw all the specialities together to explain a whole picture in total perspective . But then again the ability to accept and comprehend what they hear is relative to the above discussed combinations.

Having established the reasons for god regardless of the empirical truth we are now in the position to offer a meaningful differentiation between the personal need of religion a the institutional churches . The latter being the focus of your question.

As stated previously it is inevitable that any institution/ corporation will become an entity in of its self and as such its primary purpose is to maintain its own existence. Aided and abetted by those who use the entity as a vector for personal power

It is only once they have milked the power Cow dry and unable to sustain its existence then then and only then they'll diversify/ morph the institution to nominally serve a different function. Probably a more conventional money making, while essentially remaining what they are organisations to create and maintain power. Perhaps under the guise of a welfare services conglomerate or banking et al. ( see the history of the knights of the Hospitallers ( St John Ambulance)/ knights Templar who after the crusades became an international banking organization which ultimately became perceived threat to the King of France. Simply raided them and effectively eliminated them ...for their wealth.)

The churches still have the not fully saturated/exploited 3^rd world .

Off topic The problem with the Republicans is that they haven't yet realised that, by analogy “they're still selling a the security/comfort ( of the well known) of wall phones (one solution many variations) but the fragmented markets, the public are demanding many different solutions to suit the multiplicity of interests.

Well you asked for it !