So you're opposed to religion just like you're opposed to theism. All is vanity, as Ecclesiastes says. And what you defend is biblical enlightenment. That kind of enlightenment will run up against the Enlightenment, that is, the kind produced by reason and that became central to what historians call the modern period.
If you read further into my writings, you'll see that I criticize hyperrational prejudices, and incorporate existentialism into my philosophy. So I also think certain experiences are fundamental to enlightenment.
But we differ greatly in our sources of information. I understand the Bible based on the historical-critical study of it. The Bible's not nearly as special or as pristine as you think it is. The crucial experiences are those that cut through mass delusions to the heart of our common existential predicament.
Part of that predicament is what you say about the psychological needs that religion fulfills, which I've written about in other articles. See, for example, "The Theistic Priming of Oligarchy" and "Have We been Conned into Civilization?" But it goes much further than religion. For thousands of years, philosophers have distinguished between the intellectual elites and the vulgar, unreflective masses. Most people would prefer to be happy than enlightened, because the one may be antithetical to the other.
