There is a religious instinct that explains much beyond religion.

I feel like it's a morning commute from Virginia Beach to Newport News with six-car pile-ups in both bridge-tunnels and the James River Bridge stuck in the lift position. If I want to make it to work, I'm either taking back roads all the way out to Richmond and turning around, or I'm taking a boat. Given an 8,000-character limit, I'll take the boat. My opponent posits that people possess a religious instinct, but is quick to explain that religion is merely one possible outgrowth of this instinct, which could just as easily be termed the "X instinct". What he asserts can be summarized as follows: People have at least one instinct, characterized by a desire to construct consistent explanations for the world around them that are subscribed to by a group for which they have an affinity. I object to my opponent's argument for a religious instinct on the grounds that this purported instinct contains inside it the seeds for the species' destruction and can therefore hardly be the evolutionary advantage that he claims it is. To say that an instinct is necessary but that we must move beyond it, as my opponent does, is to argue against the necessity of said instinct. It is like arguing that training wheels on a bicycle are an instinct, when in fact they are merely a man-made tool that can be applied or removed as the community sees fit. Man is born with precious few instincts. Rather, he learns by trial and error and by the instruction of his community. The "tribal instinct" of which my opponent speaks is a mirage caused, first, by the child's inability to leave his community; second, by his rational decision to stay with the community that has hitherto provided for his needs; and third, by his learned suspicion of the unknown. Regarding the third point, consider how a child will touch a hot stove once, but usually not twice. Of course people construct theories to explain the world around them, but it hardly follows that such action is instinct. Rather, it is people learning to do what is most likely to further their survival, just as Pavlov's dog learned to associate the sight of a lab coat or the striking of a bell with the appearance of food. Now, after the lab coat and bell no longer bring food, the dog eventually stops expecting it. Why, then, does it seemingly take so much longer for humans to change their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence? My opponent offers the religious instinct as explanation. I propose another explanation, which I will explain via example: A person grows up as part of the community of the United States of America. His parents raise him to support his country, right or wrong. His country goes to war, and he accepts the justifications offered by his community (his parents and, by extension, his country). It's going to take a lot of contrary evidence to cause him to doubt the position of those who have provided for his physical and emotional needs (his family) and those who he has been led to believe provided for him (his country). When (if) he finally does make the break, he finds himself in crisis situation: all his life, he has found it in his best interest to align himself with his community, and for the first time he is doubting that assertion. Afraid of losing the generic benefits of community, he now "puts his faith in", to use an appropriately religious term, the community that ultimately caused him to break (ideologically, at least) with his original community. I would like to emphasize that this example does not depend on any instinct, but only on the learned benefits of belonging to a community. Finally, we are left with the ego. Certainly, people go to great lengths to protect their fragile egos. But why are egos so fragile, you might ask? It is because they are merely social constructions. Psychologists' identification of the ego, superego, unconscious, subconscious, and et cetera only describe how compartmentalized each individual has become. Rather than identify with his whole self, the average person learns to see himself as only a fraction of his total self--not because of instinct, but because of poor education. As a convenient way of dealing with nightmares, parents tell the child repeatedly, "It was just a dream," causing the child-to-be-man to devalue what many cultures consider a valuable extension of the self. To prepare him for life in a semi-capitalist society, the child is taught the artificial concept of property. To prepare him for a life where he will make profligate use of the Earth's resources, he is taught that he is superior to everything else on and in the Earth. The child is taught patriotic and religious songs in his earliest, most impressionable ages. He is taught to be Separate. Because it is an artificial construction, designed to fit the needs of the society, the ego is necessarily fragile. The slightest kick from a countercultural website, or a dream of great portent, or a controlled substance, and the child-now-man is sent reeling, grasping for a new community to fill his needs. If my opponent had argued that we were all aspects of God waiting to realize our divine birthright, or that religion owed its existence to people's attempts to rationalize the sudden appearance of divine beings, either in physical reality, dreams, near-death experiences or hallucinations, I would have a harder time taking issue with his claim. However, his very widening of the "religious instinct" to encompass all kinds of non-religious activity cheapens the idea of religion. Perhaps all religions are false, but many of them are outgrowths of legitimate experiences with the divine, and not merely expressions of some vague human instinct. Furthermore, according to my opponent, people are hardwired for their own destruction. Preserving the ego requires more and more destructive means of protection (destruction) as our scientific knowledge increases. How is this an evolutionary advantage? Let me string it all together here: If we have, as my opponent sets out at the beginning of his argument, "(1) an innate human desire to have theories that explain the world around them", then our scientific knowledge will continue to increase to the point of being able to either cause all sorts of good or create all manner of destruction; but because we have "(2) an innate human design to belong to a tribe bonded by common beliefs" and "(3) an innate human tendency to preserve the ego by rationalization of beliefs in the face of contrary evidence", we will inevitably prioritize development of those destructive technologies to protect ourselves from the instinctually threatening Other. My argument, that what my opponent claims is instinct is actually learned, carries with it the hope that our species can survive through better education. In contrast, my opponent argues that we must overcome something hard-wired into us, what he calls an instinct. I have a hard time believing, and refuse to believe, that we as a species are hardwired for our own destruction.