And the religions at hand now don't work for a scientific culture (at least, not the theistic Western ones that happen to be at hand). If along with the labels "we" removed the ritual or signatory behavior the labels labeled, their behavior would change. Political example: The fundies probably would not have voted en masse for W in 2004, or Trump in 2016, if left to themselves as individuals. Simply refusing to label stuff might not make any difference - for one thing, they will label themselves. The only people trying to deal with stuff without naming it would be the "we". The consequences of relying on philosophy and ethics to incorporate an intellectual field into human life are well illustrated by the current practice of law and medicine in the US. Medicine and law are also in need of an adequate religion. (Philosophy and ethics do not suffice, because they are limited by rationality rather than simply answering to it. Illustration: a philosopher or an ethicist dealing with poetry and music.) You invent any such "dichotomy". There is none in my posts. The benefits I listed - and several others - are not "gaps left by science", and they are not "emotional needs". They are critically important benefits to human communities and individuals not available without deep and community established organization of human spiritual/aesthetic/"intuitive" life: religion. It's not just science that can't provide them. That needs rethinking in light of the benefits of religion that science does not enjoy, and the consequences of not having them. Science is once again near taking a bad turn, getting lost - and rationality will not save it. Currently available religions, to Western science. We have agreed they won't do. So we have progress: no deity, no superstition, and no providing excuses for bogus exceptionality and bad behavior (since our religion is to incorporate rationality and scientific approaches, we may get the last two for free in a sense). It begins to take form.