Pascal's Wager in action.

Seems to me that many people just treat the religion of their family/community as the rules by which they have to play to survive, succeed and be accepted within. Doesn't matter if they believe the rules are right or just, or even if they cheat on the rules, it's just the standard that is guiding them, right or wrong.

Few people actually take a step back and question whether what they are being taught is good or bad, but those of us who do aren't all that much better off I guess. I personally like to think for myself, and am happier for it, because I don't care whether "I belong" with the followers of the prevalent religious or spiritual views. Others are more comfortable keeping their own doubts and thoughts to themselves and adopt a believing attitude to not make waves in their community, because they care more about how they are viewed by others.

I think many are not really believers but count themselves as religious. Often this is done to keep peace within a family and the person just goes with the flow.

One common claim made by religious apologists is that, all of the harm coming from religion stems from a literal interpretation of it, and that it can be easily be redeemed by treating it as a metaphor.

But sadly, whether religion is metaphorical or literal, is completely beside the point as to whether it is a good thing or not.

When your holy book tells you that you should smash the brains of your enemies children out against the rocks. It does not matter if you read it literally, or read the word "children" metaphorically as arts, science, and culture. It is still a nasty idea. Religion without a literal god, does not stop the worship of fake authority, it just moves that fake authority to things like tradition, the sayings of gurus or writings in holy books, making those things into pseudo-gods.

Science is not a replacement for religion, as anti rationalists like to say. Nor should it ever pretend to be, but it is a replacement for some of religion's functions, and it is not alone, we now have, nation states, the rule of law, secular morality, philosophy, democracy, socialism, environmentalism, trade networks, humanism, the idea of social justice, public welfare, international law, and secular education at least. Religion was only ever a primitive substitute for all of those, and if only because those many ideas, offer more nuance, and more honest mission statements, religion is now obsolete, lets get over it.

Even if god/theism is a metaphor, that does not make it a good metaphor. There are good and bad metaphors as well as many pointless and trivial ones.
Humans are not only metaphor forming animals, they are also eating animals. Made by natural evolution to have hungers, but that does not mean that all diets are good for you. Yet you can choose a healthy diet, and are more likely to do so if you receive good education and are protected against those who wish to gain, ruthlessly and without conscience, by pushing unhealthy foods.
You can also choose your metaphors.
The fake assumption made here is that, if it is natural for humans to create, metaphor and culture, then all metaphors and cultures are either good and of equal value, or even more, that one, the theist metaphor, is proven superior. It is a giant leap (Well several actually.) from, it is natural for humans to make metaphors, to, all metaphors are good, and my favoured one is the best of all.

To a degree I do have some sympathy with the fundamentalist. They look at moderate religion, especially cults, like the metaphorical view, and they see rightly, that it is, shallow, narcissistic, dishonest cherry picking, manipulative, self serving, and corrupt, and their moral instincts give them a visceral disgust at the very thought of it. Their only mistake is in thinking that more religion, not less, is a better answer.

Think in terms of indoctrination, as all religions insist followers adhere to their doctrine.
People react differently to indoctrination and are also exposed to that indoctrination in varying degrees.
Some will fully accept the doctrine and are what we call extremist fundamentalists.
Some will reject the doctrine completely and are what we call atheist.
But the vast majority will naturally resist as their logical brain has trouble accepting much of the doctrine verbatim. These are your people with religion without belief. They do however, accept the doctrine publicly as they wish to be part of that group for whatever reasons. They are your agnostics, your Pascal's wager types.
Indoctrination works best on weak minds, which is why children are targeted as well as the majority of born agains seem to be (in my experience) people who can't handle their drugs and are reaching out for help.

I see an alarming lack of analytical thinking in that article.

A nonreligious sense of community? An atheist "church"? No thanks.

Most people I know, say they are spiritual rather than religious. Yet they can not define what spiritual is. Spiritual for me is simply the 99% unknowns until it’s manifest into the ego self. Nature is the only religion that I can handle or comprehend. I translate the word love to God, as everyone is God because the universe is glued together by love. Using words and trying to understand religion, mediphorically is where my imagination can not grasp, or understand in my lifetime. I say, what ever works for anyone as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Leading with my heart and shortly following with my mind alway works for me personally, in the long run.

Do historians prepare testable hypotheses and then test them?