First of all, science does not take the position that the universe is inhospitable and pointless. That may be your belief, but science does not advocate personal beliefs and philosophies. The universe is obviously hospitable enough for life to exist and is only pointless if you think life itself is pointless and that would be your personal belief. Secondly, if you equate truth with reality, there cannot be two different kinds of truth, or an "alternative truth." (Except maybe in politics.) Advocating an alternative truth is the same as advocating for alternative facts, and alternative facts are also known as lies or illusions. What you are really advocating is not a "pragmatic truth" but a pragmatic illusion, or delusion, that makes you feel better and works for you because of your personal belief that life is pointless. If you wish to take refuge in a delusion that makes you feel better, OK, but be aware that the reason it works is because of your personal belief that life is pointless. Don't blame it on science!

I view reading religious texts and following the dogma much as I view most fandoms. Difference is, most fandims understand that, while the story may have a good message, with strong, smart, skilled, and/or moral people to help guide us in times of difficulty, the fandom knows it's fake, made up...
There are still benefits in losing ourselves in fiction, the problems occurs when we to start to believe Harry Potter or Superman or Hobbits are real.

"Nature which seem indifferent of our individual lives..." is an understatement. Nature only has one objective and that is evolution and if any species doesn't fit into that scenario they are short lived. Religion is one way to circumvent nature (so we think) and I am starting to see Humanism is just as bad. Anthropocentrism will not save us and will actually cause us to go extinct. We need to learn our place and quit trying to play the numbers game. The more of us the more will die out.
I don't see the myths as being pragmatic (depending on what one is talking about) but just the opposite for homo sapiens. What kind of truth promotes violence, hatred, death, suffering, planetary destruction to name a few? That is the kind of meaning life could do without.

This sounds like a fair assessment. Scientific truth is perfect for negotiating a pragmatic environment but it’s laws are not necessarily valid unless in the world of the imagination. For example, how to define homophones unless a context is applied.

Indeed, if some aspects of the quantum world are to be believed, then some aspects of imagination are co-authors of pragmatism.

Three score years and ten define our parameters of physical experience. Perhaps another set of definitions open another level of experience.