DixyCrat, thanks again for offering some articles and studies to support your claims. Allow me to address some of them.
Meyer, John. W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony." American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340.
I don't see how this one supports the idea of faith, myth, or ceremony as being valuable in any way other than supporting the institution itself that spawned them. This paper is an empirical study of those things and how they form and affect an organization. The paper quite clearly places institutional beliefs in opposition to scientific or otherwise practical pursuits:
Organizations whose structures become isomorphic with the myths of the institutional environment [...] decrease internal coordination and control in order to maintain legitimacy. [...] In place of coordination, inspection, and evaluation, a logic of confidence and good faith is employed.
[...]
Organizational structures are created and made more elaborate with the rise of institutionalized myths [...] but an organization must also attend to practical activity. The two requirements are at odds.
It might argue that some emergent ceremonial practices can provide structure and longevity, but also warns of impracticality and inefficiency. I would also point out that this paper seems much more deeply interested in secular or at least more general institutions such as government bodies, law, business and other bureaucracies, although its observations could naturally apply to any organization. I have to conclude you did not read or did not fully understand this paper because it undermines you.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American Sociological Review 48:147-160.
I won't go into great detail with this one because it's similarly narrow in scope. It specifically addresses organizational bureaucratization and homogenization almost entirely in the context of business: its language is that of management, finance, hiring, and production. It does posit that homogenization may emerge from institutionalized rational demands and that diversity and divergent organizational behavior may be valuable, but may also introduce dysfunction. Again this does nothing for you.
I'll skip ahead.
Karel Weick- 1976, "Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems." Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1-19.
Please identify for me how faith or religious institutions represent loosely coupled systems and how that relates to the context of educational systems in this paper. Interestingly, the author even explicitly recommends some empirical approaches (or the development of some) to investigate loosely coupled systems, despite the challenges he identifies in that venture. Your argument that faith and its structural representations help predict human behavior would seem to exclude it immediately from having anything to do with this research. The whole point of organized religion is to produce a tightly coupled system.
I've scanned the rest and they all seem equally irrelevant, even if some are very interesting in sociological terms. I strongly suspect that you didn't read a word of these, or you are misrepresenting them as supporting the direct value of faith. Perhaps you meant to argue that myth and ceremony provide structure, longevity, and diversity to organizations, which is an actual point supported by these articles. That may be true, but all we can conclude about religion from this is that it is very well-engineered to endure and maintain control over its members. These articles cannot be used to comment on religious validity or the global utility of faith, and in fact strongly oppose the idea that baseless belief is anything but impractical.
Maybe you also you meant to say that
studying institutionalized belief or the organizational structures of religion -- in essence, employing
psychology and sociology -- might grant some insight into human behavior, a point which I never opposed.