You may want to read my response to @matias Also, I am clearly not describing philosophy as a whole.

@Falsifiable1
Sure I understand what you mean and have used the term in that sense of meaning, basically religion is a philosophy unto itself. I think that is what you were or are trying to say.

@Etre Thank you. Yes. Always nice to be on the same page.

Using these two words in concert "True religion" is subject to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Please try to refrain from it.

Descibing it as the "highest and greatest of human experience" is pure opinion and would need a basis for comparison that is nearly equal to it in order to have proper discussion.

Even waste can have its benefits. Drinking ones own urine in a desperate attempt to stay hydrated in the middle of a desert is beneficial, but would be suicide if continued when modern treated water is available.

@Falsifiable1 There is no fallacy. It is perfectly logical to divide a set into subsets. If I said that true tea is made from tea leaves, I would be correct. It is true that tea can be made from something else, say rose hips, but that would be tea in name only. It would be better to call that herbal tea. You might look in your dictionary and see herbal tea listed under “tea”, and in that case we could engage in a useless infantile argument over semantics.

If I said that all true Scotsmen have red hair, that would be a fallacy, similar to the one you are committing here. You are asserting (in a crude and offensive way) that no religion has value. To prove you wrong I need only present one religion that has value. I present three: Unitarianism. The Society of Friends, and Unity. None of these has ever promoted anything but peace, love, and harmony. None requires belief.

You want me to prove that religion is the highest and greatest of human experience. I doubt if anything I said would persuade you, but you could read the words of physicists on the subject of religion. You might follow the website closertotruth.com. A great variety of arguments and opinions are presented there from all perspectives.

@Falsifiable1, @TiberiusGracchus See my reply to Falsifiable.

@WilliamFleming
I did not assert religion had no value. That my friend is a Strawman fallacy. I'm asserting, in a crude way, that it's a branch of philosophy that has little value to humankind and should be replaced by critical thought. Whether you or anyone else takes offense is not a valid retort against my assertion.

You have yet to define what "true religion" is and yes it is a logical fallacy. It may not be to you, but it remains a fallacy all the same. One person's "true" scotsman is another one's false or lesser scotsman. If you want to be vague and say true tea is made with any tea leaf then the word "true" is unnecessary.

@Falsifiable1 “True religion”, as I use it, is an individual experience. It is not based on a set of prescribed beliefs, but consists of joyful awareness and appreciation for the staggering implications of existence.with all its mystery and grandeur. It is a kind of orientation or attitude toward reality—what you would experience if your consciousness had suddenly awakened to the world and you had no idea what it all meant.

I think that many of those imposing religious organizations that have strict irrational dogmas might have started out as the true religious sentiment of a leader, but gradually became mired in rote ceremonies and ridiculous beliefs as ego-ridden organizers flocked in and used fear and guilt to gain power. That type of person has little idea of the meaning of true religion. Yet, hidden beneath a load of garbage, there often remains a few gems. Aldous Huxley compiled a list of those gems in “The Perennial Philosophy”.

Maybe I am stretching things to call that religion—Einstein and I call it religion. As you say, language is messy.