First: What do you know about Europe.Nothing it seems.
Btw I read that an anonymous survey in the USA has “shown”
that most people voice allegiance to religion because they think they’d look bad if they don’t.That’s because of the vocal, aggressive religionist minority in that country.

Ask people if they are Christians.Many will say yes.But often they don’t even know the traditional ten commandments (or that there are ten).

Religion affiliation isn’t a matter of fashion, but education.Without indoctrination, people usually are atheistic or agnostic (which gets lumped together with atheism by many religionists, who are unable to assume the position of the other sides).

Anyway: Science is no religion, at least not if you don’t mistake the content for the method, and are ready to revise said method in light of new information.Science as religion should get a new word, and would be properly filed away as some kind of philosophy.

If you’d still count real science (as opposed what opponents of science take to be science) as religion, then your definition of religion is broad enough to cover almost everything.

Btw: The conclusion in your last paragraph doesn’t follows from anything you said.In fact, it is wrong.Even if we’d call a fully fledged religion science…

Lot’s of religous stuff has no empirical consequences (besides dumbing down people, or making them kill each other), so doing outdated outdated could be just another instance of “going through the motions”.How many catholics actually believe they literally eat the flesh of Jesus!?

Do they think of themselves as cannibals, or “godbals” (divinovores)?I don’t think so.