There are many that view holy books as a collection of historical accounts given by visionaries or in witness of visionaries - those that view it as "merely" a book of facts to take or leave can still hold this view, and can still be religious. Devoutness comes in many forms. Blind belief in the Bible, for example, isn't something I've really encountered in my religious upbringing - not really all that common to encounter outside of specific examples made a mockery of on Facebook or political rally (grew up in California, likely different in bible belt).

Doubt is often encouraged, though min got the better of me and I've since been pretty distant from faith-based living.

EDIT: grammar and clarity, minor changes

> Devoutness comes in many forms.

Oh, of course. I am not saying there's only one way to do it. On the contrary, that's exactly what I'm saying is wrong to think :)

If it's about reading moral stories then why identify as $religion at all instead of reading a variety of religious texts (and other sources) and taking the pieces you want?

Why be in a soccer team if you can just buy a ball and kick around as much as you can? ;) Again, there's more to it than reading the books. Some religions don't even have books, in fact. People had religions way before they had books. And if you think there one answer to the question "why belong to a religion" you still miss the point by a wide margin :)