I don't disagree with the author, but I do think he underestimates the beneficial effects of the drug to its users in that he fails to mention the often large s

I don't disagree with the author, but I do think he underestimates the beneficial effects of the drug to its users in that he fails to mention the often large social benefits that one can obtain by belonging to a church, especially in a world where contact with one's local community seems like it is becoming less common. The IRL social network that religion provides, in addition to its palliative effects, comprise the major sources of utility from religious belief. And I think it does a good job of explaining the uphill battle that evangelical atheists have. In order to convert someone, you have to convince them that being correct on a technical metaphysical issue is worth the real costs that they will bear for abandoning their religion. It's not the most appealing sales proposition. Religion has been around for as long as humans have. I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon. And despite the fact that I think it's wrong, I have serious doubts that the world would be a better place without it. This is also the crux of the disagreement that I have with the self-proclaimed rationalists (see the blog Less Wrong for examples). Rationalists believe that what is true is also always beneficial, but I am not convinced that this is necessarily so. I find it easy to imagine a world where believing some false propositions was beneficial, and I suspect we may even live in such a world.