There is a religious instinct that explains much beyond religion.

Resolved: There is a religious instinct that explains much beyond religion. I contend that there is a "religious instinct" which is independent of any particular religion. Every religion is a manifestation of the religious instinct, but not every manifestation is a religion. The claimed religious instinct is a conjunction of three factors: 1. An innate human desire to have theories that explain the world around them. 2. An innate human design to belong to a tribe bonded by common beliefs. 3. An innate human tendency to preserve the ego by rationalization of beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. I am not particular about the terminology. The resolution could be framed in terms of the "X Instinct", characterized by the three named elements. I call non-religious manifestations "quasi-religious", but if Con likes a different term, that's fine with me. The proposition does not depend upon the terminology. In the case of a traditional religion a mystical belief, not always a belief in a god or gods, explains the origins, purpose, and conduct life. Believers join in the religion that share the belief and bond as a tribe that reinforce the beliefs. Believers instinctively rationalize their beliefs. Rationalizations involves downplaying or ignoring all data contrary to belief system while embracing all confirming data. Rationalization protects the ego and provides the comfort of certainty. My speculation is that making theories and refusing to abandon them is an evolved trait that provides a survival advantage. For a primitive person in the wilds, coming up with quick conclusions and then acting with determination is an advantage. As a consequence, many manifestations of the religious instinct have a paranoid aspect. There is a survival advantage in being safe rather than sorry. Traditional religions are distinguished by a concern with overarching concerns, like the origins and meaning of life. However, the instinct operates at many other levels. Examples include: 1. Racism provides the believer with a simple sweeping explanation as to why many bad things happen. All, or at least a large class, of bad things derive from some race or other identifiable group. The racists bond as tribe to "protect" their tribal interests. 2. Political ideologies explain most of the ills of the world in terms of the ideological beliefs, and the non-believers who oppose them. Believers form a tribe that bonds the believers in a fight against the non-believers. 3. CO2 Climate Theory in the minds of environmental extremists casts non-believers not just as dissenters, but as heretics. 4. Sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome explains nearly all the evils of society in terms of the policies of the President. Agreeing with even one policy is considered an inexcusable pact with the devil. Anything good that Bush has done, like unprecedented humanitarian aid to Africa, is ignored in the interests of rationalization. 5. Some atheists attribute many of the world's problems to religion, per Hitchins' "Religion Poisons Everything It Touches.". It is used as a simple sweeping explanation of social ills. Missionaries helping poor people are ignored in the interests of preserving the rationalization. I am not arguing that all beliefs are irrational, or even that there is not some measure of truth in each of the five examples of quasi-religious beliefs I have cited. What elevates a mere belief to the the status of a quasi-religious one are the attributes of (a) treating non-believers as enemies of the tribe, (b) a pattern of recognizing confirming evidence and ignoring contrary evidence, and (c) application of the beliefs broadly to explain things that are not really relevant. I claim that the instinctual desire to seek simple broad theories is self-evident. The least common answer to any broadly challenging question is "I don't know." People almost always call upon some higher principle to come up with an answer. If people did not do this they would be perpetually frozen in indecision. It is absolutely necessary. What is not necessary is sticking with a simple theory in the face of counter-evidence and in a situation that demands questioning. I don't think there is much doubt about the tribal instinct of mankind, but [1] is a reference. The use of rationalization for protecting the ego is presented in [2]. The work by Shermer and Gould [3] is a classic analysis of the use of high intelligence to rationalize strange beliefs. [1] "Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind" http://www.amazon.com... [2] "A Mind of Its Own" A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives" http://www.amazon.com... [3] "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" http://www.amazon.com... The theory embodied in the resolution explains not only why religion exists so widely, but why many strong non-religious beliefs have a profoundly religious character. the theory is well-ground in knowledge of psychology. It is demonstrated concretely with many examples. The resolution should therefore be affirmed. [Please do not accept this challenge if you think you may have to forfeit. The unexpected can happen, I'm requesting assurances of a low probability.]