CEVAP:

Rational choice theory has also been met with critiques at some points. There are, indeed, many aspects, which appear problematic such as the fundamental assumption that all humans by nature desire answers to existential and ultimate issues. This overlooks the fact that such desires may not be the product of human nature but socially determined and culturally variable. Moreover, seeking great and difficult rewards, human beings, Stark and Bainbridge assert, simply imagine supernatural exchange partners who can deliver these rewards with no account of why this should be so. The underlying assumption seems to lie in the commitment to the use of the approach of exchange theory. Since all human interaction is some form of exchange, rewards can only be obtained through entering into exchange relationships. If one can enter into exchange relationships with certain beings to obtain rewards of a general type, then these beings must have a will and purposes like those of human beings and must, therefore, have the characteristics of gods. None of this is, however, clearly stated. Last but not least, it can be said that rational choice theory ignores the strength of mainstream/dominant religion in a society, which mostly bans competition between different religions or interpretations of the faith.