The article is mostly bunk. Religion is nothing but a psychological defense mechanism, like denial, projection, repression, dissociation, intellectualization, etc. These are all filters or distortions used to cope with reality. There is a spectrum of defense mechanisms, ranging from the healthy to the very unhealthy. Religion can fall into a fairly wide range on that spectrum.

Yes. Man looked up at the stars and thought they were something to eat. When he couldn't reach them, he assumed they were someone else's groceries.

Did the OP read the article? If so, does he believe that religion should be a taboo subject for scientific discussion. The main thrust of the article was an exploration of the evolution of belief in deities, not an attempt to legitimise such a belief.

Mmmmm:

The article is mostly bunk. Religion is nothing but a psychological defense mechanism, like denial, projection, repression, dissociation, intellectualization, etc. These are all filters or distortions used to cope with reality. There is a spectrum of defense mechanisms, ranging from the healthy to the very unhealthy. Religion can fall into a fairly wide range on that spectrum.

It's also a way to get people to make personal sacrifices for the benefit of society.

I think the argument is that if religion (or war ;- )) wasn't beneficial to the species, it would have been selected against long ago. Another recent article argued that the decrease in the prevalence of war in the lives of most humans argues that war is becoming mal-adaptive as civilization evolves. We see no similary lessening of the impact and practice of religion in society, arguing that the benefits of religion largely remain intact.