I believe it’s a fallacy called “hypothesis contrary to fact” in which someone jumps to major conclusions based on what if scenerios. While it is more likely that without religion, the twin towers would still exist but still plausible that they could have been attacked for some other reason. But that’s not why I mention it. I’m mentioning it because in this what if scenario, the person jumps to the conclusion that geometry would not be studied which would be very unlikely due to the lack of religion probably promoting freedom of thought and critical thinking. But again, that too is a what if scenario.