Personal spiritual beliefs are often speculative, and are often pragmatic for that person. And that is okay, so long as it does not harm others or corrupt public truth. When individuals say their personal spiritual beliefs are meaningful or identity-forming, that is personal meaning, not public truth.
In the broader sense, religions do much good too. They provide community, belonging, and family, and that is easily verified as true. However, religious claim need guardrails. The first step is to classify it. A claim about the physical world must answer to the physical world. A theological argument based on empirical claims must answer to evidence too.
Religion becomes harmful when it dismisses evidence, shields itself from criticism, controls public life, or traps people in fear, guilt, shame, or obedience. It becomes harmful when it teaches people not to question. It becomes harmful when it denies medicine, distorts education, excuses abuse, suppresses identity, or uses eternity as a threat. At those points, religion is no longer merely helping people carry life. It is using belief as a cage.
This is where John Stuart Mill’s harm principle comes to mind. People should have wide freedom to believe, worship, and live by conscience. But that freedom changes when one person’s belief begins to harm another person. My own less-harm view points in the same direction: the goal is not to crush religion or force atheism. The goal is to reduce harm while preserving agency.
The answer is calibrated confidence. Private belief should be held with humility. Public claims require public evidence. No belief, religious or not, should be allowed to ignore reality when other people are affected. And finally, this is the big one: no one should force their beliefs about the currently unknown or unknowable onto others.