From your comments it appears you continue to believe that our 'built-in' primitive kin-based and reciprocity-based altruism which is likely genetic is somehow an ideal. This runs counter to the vast majority of scientific thought as noted in the quote above. If you want to make this case you need to present a stronger argument then "There is plenty (of unspecified) reasons to think that it is functional" or the entirely unsupported "only religions people need moral guidance".
I thinks it's pretty clear that I don't think it's an ideal, just that it works better generally than for some of those who
need religion for moral guidance.
And I have countered that the moral system provided by religion is decisively superior to the built-in' primitive kin-based and reciprocity-based system. Furthermore I have supported my claim with data specifically:
1) The data that those who reject religion appear to suffer from reduced health, happiness and fertility as outlined in the opening post.
And
2) The research supporting the claim that religion is a critical and perhaps primary mechanism for overcoming our species-specific upper limit to group size which is set by purely cognitive constraints.
You have countered that you do not find the data convincing based on your personal research and observations.
Every day I experience interactions with people with whom I do not share an in-group relationship, and yet I don't judge them as unreliable and those people don't judge me unreliable.
You have also countered with the theory that religion may override our 'built-in' moral system at the local social group level resulting in inferior outcomes as the 'built-in' system is presumably optimized for such situations.
Both of your claims are logical but unpersuasive. You have provided no empiric data to support your theory that religion leads to inferior outcomes at the local level. The the data I provided on health and happiness appears to refute this claim. Furthermore I have no way to measure or evaluate your unpublished personal research.
Have we drilled down to the core of our differences?