I think the idea of asking the question is legitimate, but perhaps expecting an answer in the face of inadequate if not contrary evidence, is hoping for too much, and in DD's view, idiotic.
Science cannot yet fully explain consciousness, but I am willing to wager that it is further along the road than you suspect. Try reading Daniel Dennett if you are curious.
Asking whether the world would be better without religion is definitely a case of 'could have done otherwise'. My view is that perhaps it was once useful, but we now know better. The problem with religion is that it can be summoned up to support almost any idea, and that makes it at least irrational in practice, and particularly dangerous now that we have so much technology that does not allow for afterthoughts.
Religious rituals and ideas always have some practical basis relevant to the time, but technology means that so many are now fossils. As a (trivial) example, strong family ties guaranteeing care in old age, have largely been replaced by pensions and insurance.
He has been answering you. Anglicanism is actually a religion, you know. Remember, you asked him to name one...and then he named one...and then you ignored him and told him to name one.
