So I've written an essay mostly to edify myself by doing research, but others may find it worth a read:
Full essay
here. (Google docs link, no download, 5 pages.)
Again I have not read your whole essay, but judging it from the exert you provided, it seems to be a sociological (inductive) type argument against religious faith as a tainted or broken house for humanity? It is true that your Scientism might offer a broader barn roof, to house all the various radical diversity of faith we have on the planet: I'm afraid that any appeal at grabbing at the larger narrative that everyone can each have their piece of the largest existential pie (that's happens to be ripe for the sharing): is already the formula that basically all religion (including the obviously fake religions) is founded in.
And although it is conceivable that you would be able to get people to trade up their "false" form of faith for your "better" secular narrative, that claims to promise more... it probably will never promise enough: because likelihood at being the majority narrative to be adopted by the world's entire population, is still not the same as a truth claim. I have heard some positive arguments for the adoption of Science as a framework for maintaining a general perspective that carries defencibility; I believe those arguments to entitle science with that kind of authority: appeal to so few people, because the reasoning is so overtly feeble and unconvincing. (only a handful of people in the world supposedly understand the classical model of physics, furthermore, Jehovas Witness claim their factual supremacy in just the same type of claim- their claim to hold the ultimate general appeal for the entire population [that all could share in their accounts of human history]; therefore in my mind your logic follows their same tactic, which is also shared by
some of the groups who self-identify as followers of Islam; which can mean that you might be able to displace believers in all those prone to that kind of philosophical-authoritarianism in favour of your secular Scientific-version, but I doubt you could produce a tasty enough narrative as propaganda enough to convert those who have already found their home with the authority of "strongest popularity";- that they have decided to promote (this style of faith derives a force rather like a chain-letter that is constructed to illicit sympathy also with the tacit implication that one day you will be punished by some hasty uprising of mob justice (that you are compelled to experience immediately by some trademark of existentialist angst peculiar with the group in question) because you didn't [or won't] promote the chain letter as instructed)).
It's a bit like trying to sell a product to a audience without being capable of demonstrating any proof for it, only telling people of the value you claim it possesses (when all it actually offers is the punishment of disconnecting from the popularity of its group-think); its a narrative of blind faith in people who wear lab coats and hypothesize all day.. who only manage to go onto qualifying for philosophy degrees because they have the collective money and influence to warp the entire academic enterprise around science's brittle schemes for gainsaying in support of their flimsy empirical authority (which is doomed to leave quantum mechanics misunderstood until the Scientific process is discovered to be flawed in its erroneous presumption on time conceptualization that already negates free will and God (thus making it utterly incompetent to examine those topics because of Science's presumptuous "oversight" over the basic fabric of reality, programmed into Scientific methodology).