It's we who choose our way, and when we find that religion fulfills the good role of serving as a guide, we follow it without question. People, religions, and beliefs, each following what he believes.

Jung is the best 'modern' fusion of belief and skepticism, in my opinion.

Perhaps some religions are commanding, tyrannical, etc. But many religious conceptions are not.

I do not think religion is based on an appeal to authority.

Religion operates on the basis of art. You glance into any ceremonial form of a religion... What do you see?
Art. Symbolism. Aesthetics. Poetry. Music. Forms of behavior and thinking that appeal to the most visceral, fantastic aspects of the psyche. Religious ecstasy for instance.

Religion is a form of ambiguous, symbolic expression instantiating feelings that cannot be endowed with reason. They are artistic. Is it a coincidence that religious people worship creation?
The hypocrisy of religion is stagnation.
"The disintegration of Protestantism into over four hundred different denominations is a sure sign that the restlessness continues" (C G Jung, Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious).

The idea of reincarnation or communion with the divine, or virgin birth, or a savior, the conquering of death, a great flood, earth goddesses and nature gods, etc etc etc, gods of creation, destruction, light, darkness, death, life, love, hate, good, evil...

These are symbolic anthropomorphizations of psychical qualities expressing a hemimorphic shape, the base of which is unconscious and fantastic, and something ergomorphic, as the conscious mind is a sort of organ--the unconscious meaning changes shape in its expression.

We may not want to accept it but the various 'great' religions are a philosophical success. Religion is not about mere ethics and morality but it's also aimed at moving people politically and socially as well as educate them a little while at it. To that respect, religion is a marvel of unprecedented proportions especially that it persists so heavily in this day and age.

Imagine if you could travel back in time and reveal some of modern day scientific achievements during any period of any of the religious revolutions. It might be that they would think of you as a prophet. Now, imagine how hard the religious instinct must have fought to survive through, at the least, all the scientific revolutions we've had. Clearly, it's no mean feat.
I think the need for religion is a genuine one whether addressed appropriately or not. There is an innate need to realise the greater unity or that we are 'bigger' than ourselves and religion does that better than any other philosophy has. In this sense, I think religion has, so far, been superior than philosophy.

Also, while religion has its 'dark' side, I think we could better understand it if we learnt how to translate its colourful language and imagery with a bit more realism and simplicity. For example, 'God created the world and everything in it', probably just means that if the world exists, it must have a way of coming into existence. The only controversial part is that religion calls the 'way of coming into existence' or 'the cause of existence' simply as God. But, either way, in whatever field of knowledge, no matter the language, process or identity, the significance remains the same. Life and the world are no different even after the realisation that this earth has evolved over millions of years instead of the 'six business days' catalogue lightly implied in the bible.

Therefore, perhaps we should perceive religion as a form of philosophy which, like most others, has been turned into a caricature of its actual identity.

There is no such thing as ‘religion’ simpliciter. The term is a name for many different strands of practice, belief, and discipline from diverse cultural and psychological sources. The word itself has been derived from two alternative etymologies, one ‘religio’, ‘attitude of awe and reverence to the gods’, or alternatively, re-ligare, to bind or tie [reminiscent of the meaning of ‘yoga’, ‘to yoke or join’.]

Within religious traditions there are various sources of practice and understanding, notably, on the one hand, invocation or workship of deities, subsumed in the monotheistic faiths under the heading of the One True God. But another [although much less-appreciated] source is the shamanistic tradition and the disciplines which originated with that, typically including yogic practices, cultivation of trance-states and transmission of esoteric wisdom.

The problem in Western culture is that much of this became absorbed into the monolithic structure of the Church and to all intents locked in the vaults and only to be approached on the churches’ terms. Meanwhile there were parallel and underground esoteric movements such as Hermeticism, Gnosticism, and so on, which are religious in some ways, philosophical in others. But the predominant mainstream influence was first institutional Catholicism and later its Protestant offspring which tended to impose a particular understanding of religiosity, which, in turn, Enlightenment rationalism reacted against. And this manifests as the kind of ‘anything-but-God’ subtext underneath much scientific-secular philosophy [see for instance the Protestant Atheism of Richard Dawkins.]

The upshot is, much modern philosophy is consciously or unconsciously defined to distinguish itself from ‘religion’ - meaning that certain kinds of broad themes or ideas are encouraged, others are tacitly taboo. Certain ideas, themes, ways-of-thinking, are seen as compatible with science, therefore sound, while other are categorised as generally ‘religious’ and treated accordingly.

In the news recently,300 Catholic priests molested 1000 children in one state alone.

Philosophers are folks who might at worst cheat on their wives, or drink or smoke a little sumpin' sumpin'. They don't usually commit acts of violence or molestation.

Religion and philosophy are really versions of the same thing. Trying to understand our world, people..The ethics in the bible are philosophical.

-3rdClassCitizen

How many people did Communism kill?

World religions are currently reaping the rotten fruits of centuries long of creating followers rather than masters. True master create masters. Jesus knew this and acted accordingly, which is why his apostles could exorcise demons. Muhammad, Buddha and others knew this too. Weaker personalities and corruption have led to the destruction of their grand works. A shame, but religion as it is currently organized will know no peace until new (genuine!) prophets stand up. Perhaps Buddhism is an exception here, as they still create masters and have no corruption among their leadership.