That need could be filled in other ways, though. Religion is harmful because it makes people irrational and often controlled by dangerous forces (religious leaders).
I don't even agree that science doesn't care about human psychological needs. In the same way some scientists care about curing diseases, others care about curing psychological problems.
> That need could be filled in other ways, though. Religion is harmful because it makes people irrational and often controlled by dangerous forces (religious leaders).
I completely agree. In fact, that's my point. But you can't fulfil those needs by ignoring them. They need to be addressed directly, not denied - which is what proponents of atheism as a replacement for religion seem to be attempting.
I don't even agree that science doesn't care about human psychological needs. In the same way some scientists care about curing diseases, others care about curing psychological problems.
They care, no doubt, but I have yet to see a convincing solution that fulfils those needs in a way that matches what religion (despite being, perhaps, false) achieves, or anywhere near. The closest thing, ironically, might be the whole singularity cult, which is largely derided by a large portion of the "science" camp.
But those atheists seem to be just fine, psychologically. I don't think the need you describe needs to be filled by a lie about religion.
I agree, though, that it is a bit of a shame that atheists don't seem to make much of a concentrated attempt to care for those needs (community building against loneliness and such things). I've thought about it often.
Actually I think the church is basically just a company that caters to those needs, so what is necessary is starting another company.
