That's an interesting observation, because I've come to the opposite conclusion: that religious belief is, in some sense, a voluntary, somewhat benign form of insanity.
"Voluntary," because it takes a bit of actual work not to examine the true nature of things and feel okay in one's ignorance. (For example, evolution is not a "random" process, yet that is the caricature put forth my many who don't want to believe it.)
"Benign," because it does provide solace for the believer against facing the reality of his own mortality. (Notwithstanding the damages done by the search for this solace.)
And "insanity," because it is a belief based on little to nothing concrete, and relies on the unspoken assumption that the strength of a person's desires, fears and subjective beliefs are evidence that the religion the particular person accepts is true. And also because, as these threads can show you, it is impervious to reason and evidence. (Consider how many people literally believe Genesis [complete with its talking snakes and magic fruit trees] notwithstanding the physical impossibility of it having happened.)
What was philosophy in that sense is now in various facets called science, called religion, called meta-physics, called law.
In any case the ignorant by choice or by limitation cannot speak to any extent, nor do their ideas deserve much inspection or review, for that ignorance.
That said, it must be noted, and is the meat of this reply, that there are many who have their views and words and thoughts settled in ignorance. For example a person who says the plain-jane reading of Genesis -- Adam, Eve, the Garden, the Tree, the naked serpent is absolutely the last word, and has never delved into the matter, nor studied upon it because of ignorance from circumstance or ignorance from sloth -- that person is a burden to us all. And those burdensome people were at times intolerably tedious and drone religious teachers of too many. When their students leave them and grow onward they either rebel or box-off that floor of knowledge. Either way it becomes a settled matter to them. Bunkum or gospel truth. Settled.
In one case, "the gospel truth" case the ignorant become trapped on that floor of knowledge. They may grow in other aspects secularly and spirirually but that one floor walled off is a limitation to them.
The other case -- those who rebel against that dull teaching -- often find themselves entering another garden of knowledge. That rebellion motivates many into learning other forms of knowledge, of philosophy -- sceince, religion, etc. Especially modern science. And in that garden those individuals do grow, do flower, do bloom. Yet they too have left a floor walled off -- not trapped in it, but locked out of it.
So, even in science we are burdered with the ignorant, who make no attempt to find any system of true knowledge in any way associated with those old detested stories of Genesis, they scorn possible linkages, potential ways of looking at it. They lock up that floor exactly as it was so pitifully taught to them. A floor full of obvious mistruths.
And in that ignorance they do have a honest vanity -- they ARE smarter and wiser than the first group, those trapped on that floor as it was too simply taught them.