Andrew Sullivan has a remarkably good essay about American religion at the Intelligencer. Sullivan does not always get it right by any means, but I think his strength is that he is willing to reach far with an idea to see if he can make it work. Sometimes he reaches too far and he is not convincing. In this essay, I find two general faults, but they are not destructive to his overall point. While it is true that all human groups are wired for religion, and many people who believe they have no religion do have one, just not one they acknowledge, there are individuals who don't seem to have any gene for religion. That over half of those who believe this about themselves are deluded does not change the fact that some are not. I have been convinced most on this score by my communication with people who think they would like to believe, who see themselves as the sort of people who might have a faith and have no strong emotional or intellectual objections, yet just can't believe, not Christianity, Judaism, nor anything else on the buffet.
His second error, unsurprisingly, is about Trump supporters. He is distressed that 81% of evangelicals supported him in the end, and thinks that invalidates a claim to Christian practice he might otherwise have credited. (I believe him on this, BTW. He seems quite generous in his estimation that the lovingkindness and devotion of some evangelicals exceeds the human average by a great deal.) I have explained this so many times that I grow weary, and I am not the only one. Voting for someone is never a 100%-0% proposition, and many times people are voting against one candidate or proposition than for another. But significantly, if you keep telling them how stupid they are for this and force them to repeatedly defend their 60%-40% preference, they will gradually become 65-35. then 70-30. It is human nature that if you keep being extreme yourself in accusing them of being 100% wrong, you will harden them into a more extreme position in order to defend against your extremity. I said many times during the election that if you thought Hillary was a criminal, untrustworthy, and opportunistic but you just couldn't stomach Trump I would have no quarrel. It's only when people insisted (as relatives of mine did) that she has been falsely accused, harassed, and beleaguered all these years but has answered all these accusations admirably and with grace that I have to consider you simply insane.
I have gone far afield, and hope I have not dissuaded you from reading the essay, because it is excellent.