In religion, we see a curious (and necessary) mix of inward piety and outward engagement.  Those who would be religious seek inner peace and wholeness, yet in most instances believe that out of this inner union comes action to live out, in sacrificial fashion, the precepts which enable this union.  Those who are not religious, however, likely believe a similar schema, that inner centering results in external activity on behalf of the world in which they live.
     Who's right?  Both, really:  we should all use our inner wholeness to better the planet.  So why be religious, religious, that is, in a transcendent sense?  Only that to ignore the transcendent is to ignore that we cannot possibly live in a vacuum, alone and apart, for we would be living in a world without an anchor, without a place, a world--if we can even speak of it as such--emptied of all genuine and realistic sense and imagination, deprived, as it were, of possibility itself.  How would we know where or what we are?  Existentialism notwithstanding, possibility in a meaningless world is no possibility at all.  There would be no reason to make it better.
     We may disagree on the nature of religion, and we may differ on the gradations of religion, but it seems that if we wish to believe we live in a meaningful world, we cannot do without the transcendent.  It's hard to establish place when there is none to find.