I really like your thinking here, however I'd point out that the converse could just as easily be argued as well. That by embracing things like religion, we're actually getting worse outcomes, and therefore we should not do it.
The difference is between collective "we" and individual "we". I believe that I would get a worse outcome by embracing religion, and so I don't. I've always found science to be a much better model of reality (the two are not mutually exclusive, but in my personal belief system, I've always had one but not the other).
But as for "we", as in everyone else? It's not for me to say. I can't make the judgment for someone else that they're better off changing their belief system. I can explain mine, I can offer a different perspective, but it's not like I can reach into their head and twist their thoughts around.
I agree that the individual question is less interesting than the collective, but it was indeed the collective that I was referring to. If we recall context; we're discussing a person who has allowances made for his religious observance, and that process being described by someone else as effectively pandering to his mental illness at an organisational cost.
That is, why should an allowance be made for him to go to church at 3pm, but not for Mitch in sales to go gambling at 3pm? At least gambling offers the potential for a return. By the interpretation under discussion, which is not entirely without merit, religion is just a mental illness that people unfortunately fall into. Why should it be encouraged or facilitated by workplaces or allow for the abrogation of duties which they would otherwise have on the same level as raising a family which is indisputably essential for the continuance of society?
