I really don't get the anti-religion sentiment here. If you find in religious teachings a way to live happily, productively, in a socially positive way, why is that a problem or anything to apologize for?
Basically, scientific thinking forces constant verification of everything and encourages questioning, while religious thinking (even with buddhism) has far more dogmas and forces acceptance and, to a certain degree, discourages questioning.
What drove me to zen-buddhism is the fact that the religious part is kept rather small and it is far more focused on daily practice.
And yet I ended up in a zen group, basically a religious organization. (A little like Ivan Karamazov.)
Doubt is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.
Most of the religious texts aren't bullshit. Especially the bible, which is anchored in a very old tradition and way of thinking.
Theology is really an interesting body of knowledge. Out-of-context quotes of the bible, it is almost always cited like that, aren't relevant and detrimental.
Running from judeo-christian tenets to a softened-up "occidentalised" Buddhism isn't more enlightening.
Context: I am an atheist, my mother is a protestant pastor, her husband is a die-hard science chemist and that make for some interesting and heated winter evening discussions :)
Christianity never made sense to me, with its insistence on guilt. You are supposed to feel guilty for what Adam did, guilty for what people did to Jesus, guilty for your inner thoughts, guilty for your supposed sins that the Satan put there.
That's the opposite of what I need, thank you.
That's certainly a way that many people approach Christianity, but I would say its not the best understanding of Christianity. Certainly, it is central to Christianity to acknowledge responsibility for sin as part developing humility, understanding the necessity of both human forgiveness and divine grace, etc.
But an excessive focus on "feeling guilty" moves away from that and into the sin of Judas, despair. OTOH, some people take a lot to get to the point of accepting responsibility, so what for some people is excessive for other people is simply necessary, not in terms of the point they need to get to, but in terms of the presentation it takes to get there.
I don't approve of disrespectful dismissals, but I understand why some people are seduced by it.
Why you're supposed to apologize is because your religion - no matter which particular mythology you subscribe to, has likely caused an immeasurable amount of sorrow for many others.
In Scandinavia, perhaps?
P.S. I'm not separating the West and Christianity. Just pointing out that today, in my opinion, the countries of Scandinavia can be considered to be peaceful, prosperous, and (mostly) atheist.
""[9] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[12] A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[13] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[14]"
Looks like the most logical outcome for me, but I don't know how to test it - or even if there is enough data in the world to test it now. Anyway, the usual correlation is not causality applies here.
In this case the distinction between correlation and causation is actually very important. The alternative causal chain, that happy people are more likely to become religious, is highly plausible. Further, there are myriad plausible confounding variables. In many cases correlation can be taken as evidence of causation, but in this particular case it really should not be.
By the time people are adults, if they haven't grown up with religion, I suspect the response to such a commandment would be something along the lines of 'That instruction set isn't implemented on this architecture - and I'm not sure I can, or would like, to become the sort of architecture where it can be.'
So, that might be one line of thought as to why it was left out.
As for religion; if they don't believe in it, then it's just some placebo-like effect if you get anything positive out of the "wooey" practices. And placebos are even more finnicky and is (by it's very nature) not something that you're well served trying to find the cause and effect for.
Meditation is actually different from religion, since it demonstrably works, there are scientific studies. Sam Harris, for instance, strongly supports it.