I also added 'pretending to believe'. I see your position as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You're encouraging people to join the most watered-down religions that make the smallest epistemological demands on followers, so that they can enjoy the benefits of community and mental well-being. 

You say:

My argument is roughly that religions uniquely provide a source of meaning, community, and life guidance not available elsewhere, and to the extent anything that doesn't consider itself a religion provides these, it's because it's imitating the package of things that makes something a religion.

I'd tend to agree with you. But how is it that religions are able to uniquely provide a source of meaning, community and life guidance, if not through shared belief? You're arguing we can reap the benefits of the effects without the cause. I'm most familiar with christianity. Where do you think the source of meaning and guidance on how to live your life come from, if not in a shared belief that jesus is the son of god, that he died for your sins, and was resurrected? 

I'm less familiar with buddhism, but every religion requires some commitment of belief, and that's the whole point.

This is a utilitarian argument for either believing or pretending to believe poorly-supported superstitions for social benefits. Do you value the truth that little?

My favorite counter-thought-experiment to this comes from Sam Harris:

A man believes there is gold buried in his very large backyard. Every Sunday morning he wakes up, grabs his shovel, and starts digging. There is no gold. But the digging is good exercise. There are no substantial negative consequences of his belief.

Is his activity justified on the basis of its utility? How much do we figure in the value of truth here? If people want to either delude themselves or pretend to delude themselves in order to benefit tangibly, I'd say they're doing a disservice to truth. You don't particularly seem to care about that. Or do you?

So you think I'm underestimating the misalignment between replicators->vehicles? Not sure that undermines my central point, that we're still fundamentally ignorant of our goal structures and that has really negative consequences for human->AI alignment. 

Or do you think our misalignment with our genes is actually a cause for optimism when it comes to AI alignment somehow?