Well at present I seem to have ‘scienced’ religion into operational and functional demands – more so than anyone in the past. You can ‘science’ literature as well. Or consciousness. There is a difference however between the science, the experience, and especially the auto-associative experience, that results from a long history of practicing a religion. That said, the personal consequences versus the consequences for the polity due to any religious, literary, historical, traditional, normative set of behaviors is often in conflict with the religious claims. Heroin addiction feels good and accomplishes the same thing as religion. Its consequences for the individual and society are terrible. Anything that produces mindfulness (sedating the prey response by evoking the pack response) will create tradeoffs. So you care about religion as a USER (personal consequences) and I care about it as RULER (political consequences). Religion is one of the last domains to ‘science’ and there is no reason we should think doing so will be any less dehumanizing than every other falsification of our primitive fantasies. Yet the demand for mindfulness will remain. As such, what will provide the services of religion yet is not false and does not produce negative consequences like the Abrahamic religions? Stoicism-epicureanism and the Tragedy worked – but it’s expensive. So Abrahamic religion is cheap education and what we call formal ‘education’ is expensive. So it appears that we need a more expensive religion. And one that isn’t false.