The questions of ‘religion’ are confounded by the complexity of their ‘evolution’ in history (to say nothing of their evolution in the strict sense) and the inability of current science to get the issues right. The theory of Darwinism has hopelessly confused the issues of religion, to say nothing of the issues of evolutionary psychology or the emergence of language and mind.
If we examine the ‘macro’ or ‘eonic’ effect we begin to get a glimpse of the historical emergence of religions and their relation to the complex dynamics of civilization. The rise of so-called ‘secularism’ has confused the issue by attempting to replace religions with very limited substitutes. There is nothing wrong with secularism, save only that its proponents don’t seem to understand it themselves, and offer very confused substitutes for ‘religion’.
I think that the religions of the Axial Age have run their course, and that this is the reason ‘secularists’ express so much confused hostility. To truly find a viable form of secularism is a work in progress and we can see that most such efforts here are too contracted.
In any case, the issue of ‘god’ has been made the test of religious/secular debates. But the ‘god’ question is destined to produce only confusion on both sides, for reasons the work of Kant made clear.