There is a theory that there is an in-born religious instinct in mankind. The theory goes that this instinct explains why religion in some form is a common feature of nearly all societies, at least traditionally. I think that religion is not in itself innate, but it serves other innate needs especially well. Consider:

Humans are designed to seek explanations. This is a survival mechanism that allows humans to benefit by understanding cause and effect.

Humans are inherently tribal. They want to belong to a tribe and to be a part of the tribal community. They also distinguish their tribe from other tribes, most often with the notion that their tribe is somehow better than other tribes. Note the fervor of sports fans in distinguishing themselves with respect to teams that are for all rational purposes the same.

Humans are creators and users of symbols. Perhaps this is part of the apparatus for explaining things, but in any case humans use many kinds of symbols for language, mathematics, culture, tradition, and various group affiliations. Religions are characteristically reinforced by ritual symbolic actions.

Traditional religion is not trivially defined. It doesn’t require belief in a god or gods. Buddhism and Jainism do not require such belief. In traditional religion there is a mystical belief of some sort at the heart of the system, even if not a belief in a god. The common thread is an over-arching belief which is not rationally derived and which serves as a guide to the believer’s life. In other word, people do things as a consequence of the belief which are not rationally derived.

A religion is an over-arching belief system that can provide easy answers to complex or unanswerable questions. This is not necessarily a bad thing. If analyzed every decision from base principles, we would end up paralyzed by the decision making process. The danger is in rationalizing the over-arching belief when in fact the belief is not justified. Absurd rationalizations are symptoms of extreme commitment to a belief system.

Even traditional religions are not necessarily exclusive. People may form there own combination of beliefs. This sometimes involves combining traditional local beliefs with one of the great religions. Examples of this include Shintoism practiced concurrently with Buddhism and Christianity in Japan, and various forms of Buddhism merged with local religions. Within Christianity there are numerous sects that essentially combine local traditions with the general framework of Christianity.

My theory is that religion is only one of the mechanisms by which the instincts behind traditional religion can be served. Some atheists believe that if traditional religion disappeared then reason would prevail. In fact, there are numerous over-arching belief systems that serve the same functions as religion. They provide community, tribal identity, and simple answers to complex problems. Radical political ideologies like communism, fascism, and socialism perform most of the functions, and there are other isms available to fill any chinks in the construction of a simply-explainable world.

One of the prominent emerging pseudo-religions is ecological fanaticism. There is nothing wrong with wanting a clean environment, just as there is nothing wrong with many religious tenets, like “love thy neighbor.” The problem comes in the tribal structure, symbolic actions, and rationalizations that come with a pseudo-religion.

Here a single example will suffice. The California legislature passed a law forbidding cigar bars, citing the health hazards posed to employees from the smoke. Promoters of cigar establishments offered to outfit their employees in gas masks, or some such equipment. That was rejected. In Silicon Valley the semiconductor industry has substantial technology for scrubbing air. It was demonstrated that the air flow could be directed from floor to ceiling and scrubbed cleaner than outside air — or cleaner than the cleanest air on earth, if desired. None of this would do. Clearly, the problem was not the health hazard to employees, the problem was evil. Smoking is deemed evil, and the legislature acted in accord with that pseudo-religious principle.

Had a religious sect demanded that smoking establishments be ended on the grounds that it violated their particular mandate from God, the legislature would not have acted. If they did, the Courts might well have intervened on grounds of separation of church and state. The American Constitution, however, offers no protection from psuedo-religions.