I think that all these 'region as a natural phenoma' guys would be aided immensively if they actually knew what they meant when they tossed around the word 'natural', and it's cognates 'supernatural', or possibly 'subnatural'?

Nature, the root, doesn't seem to mean anything at all without another noun to modify. The 'nature' of a what without the what is an empty word, the meaning of the word nature comes from the other word, as in the nature of a cup of minestrone or the nature of a horse. 'Good' is the same sort of word.

Traditionally, the rigorous definition oif the word 'nature' used as it it is thrown around by the people who do so, is 'sensible' or 'something that can cause a sense experience', and in fact, since that's what it exactly means, using the word 'natural' and supernatural' and possibly 'subnatural' when what one really means is 'sensible', or 'supersensible' or 'subsensible', using the word 'nature' and its cognates just muddies the water and if one wants to think rigorously about such things, one shouldn't use it at all, and use 'sensible' instead.

It seems to me that Atran, Boyer and all these guys don't seem to get this, and are functionally the same as a high school kid that makes a calculation error in the beginning of a long problem on a math test and are never going to come up with anything interesting.

The problem with arguing whether religion is adaptive or non-adaptive is that that stuff that is a non-adaptive byproduct can become adaptive, and it is insanely difficult to sort this stuff out. If I read you correctly, there shouldn't be this dichotomy between adaptive and non-adaptive.

If I read you correctly, there shouldn't be this dichotomy between adaptive and non-adaptive.

there shouldn't be an either or in the sum or net consideration.