Religion strikes me more as a narrative than being insightful. When I think of insight, I'm more likely to associate it with lines of inquiry; the striving for knowledge of things unknown. As with science for example. Which makes such knowledge no less insightful having been discovered, of course, but then it's an actual insight as opposed to being strictly insightful, which more accurately suggests the actual process or faculty whereby such knowledge was gleaned. Further, religion, being resistant and oft times even openly hostile to revision, owes the greater part of its subscription to the inertia of historical longevity more so than any validity of ongoing feedback. It's traditions and rituals.
I suppose the distinction is so subtle as to be almost pedantic, but it's the difference between a perspective that claims to be (rightly or wrongly) immutable, and one that by operative necessity must forever remain inconclusive.
At the point where these seemingly conflicting approaches find commonality in the object of their application, I'm convinced they'll become one. That neither exists to the exclusion of the other is proof alone of a hitherto unrecognised symbiotic component. That innominate (patris lulz) 'something' residing somewhere in the desire for knowledge itself, perhaps? I don't know.
I do hope we haven't been chasing our own tails this whole time, or we stand to be the butt of future jokes.
