Your first paragraph doesn’t really disagree with the article. That was my point, that the shape of religion’s evolution indicates that religions have performed social and political functions, which suffice to explain the exoteric aspect of religions, without the need to appeal to theism. Naturalism has its problems, but it’s more liberating than theocracies.

You don’t agree, though, with the existential interpretation of science and of atheism. I argue for that in dozens of articles. Sorry for outraging you, but are you sure you’re not shooting the messenger?

Yeah, the death of God is arguably a bigger problem than the dubiousness of religious myths. The myths held societies together, albeit in totalitarian arrangements. What are the full philosophical implications, though, of mass enlightenment, of individualism, atheism, democracy, and capitalism? Do you see the present authoritarian backlash in democracies all around the world? Are you aware of the looming environmental catastrophe, thanks to rampant consumerism?