An intresting statement

[Angrboda]

I voted disagree. I suspect that the religious impulse is a disconnected segment of a capacity of the human brain which has important adaptive advantages. At best, it might be a biological spandrel. I imagine there will always be a distribution wherein a percentage of the species will be compelled to conceptualizing religiously, and those less inclined. Whether it is necessary to live or progress needs to first ask the question of why we have cognitions and mental machinery which seems to fit hand and glove with fanciful metaphysical, ontological, religious ideas. I rather suspect it is far from accidental, and implies the eternity of religion.

This is not to say we can't fulfill the religious impulse in better ways, perhaps by some sort of praxis. I suspect the root of the religious impulse can never be made rational, so it likely will remain a nemesis when the impulse becomes political. But perhaps it can be transformed into an apolitical pragma. I don't know. Just typing this, the idea seems far-fetched. The religious impulse dwells in the unknown; in a sense, the host doesn't control it, so much as it controls the host. On that line, I suspect it will likely be perpetually at odds with the goal of a harmonious, rational secularism, or any worldview which dwells in the known.