Fair. And agreed it's a weak argument to pick on zealots. I like your argument that all cultures have things in common. I don't argue that are all the same as in not a simpleton. I say that to me there are more similarities than differences between secular and religious culture. I say that the similarities are critically instructive.

Some say there are no novel insights. But we still try. Here's one effort: suppose we hypothesize that fiction is more effective at building political consensus. When I say "fiction" I don't say falsehood. I say fiction to mean representation of reality that aim to be convincing rather than truthful. We all have seen this in action.

Suppose I say this is what religion looks like to me: the ancient study of social and political fiction.

I think modern science has lost its way. It has lost moral context. I think it looks a lot like the advanced institutions of the Roman Catholic Church near the time of the Reformation. Not exactly mind you, but in that it's existing to maintain itself rather than as a responsive, living language of healthy communal culture.

I think it's language that fascilitates rapid change in cultural realities. It's this form of religious realism that interests me in critique of modern science institution. That's not because I like to argue with people on the internet, but because I think there's a novel, applied approach that emerges in looking at the problem that way.

But I don't expect that to be clear, and while it's been interesting I'm not much for basic arguing!