In  an interview with Steve Paikin from TVO, Lionel Tiger described the brain as a natural product of evolution and to ensure its survival, the brain then invented religion.  Since something like 90% of the world’s population believe in one of the 200 odd religions, believing in a religion is a “natural” phenomenon.  Tiger then goes on to say, that unlike Richard Dawkin’s position, he thinks that if it’s natural it must be good – having a religion does not make us foolish and wrong.  Since religion is a creation of the brain, it obviously plays an important part in survival.  He says it soothes us, re-assures us and makes us feel good – especially in hard times.  If we have “brain-pain”  (e.g. worries), religions will soothe and help us.

There is a built-in need for us to want a religion.  Dan Dennett talks about the "belief in belief";  others talk about the evolution of religion; many Christians talk about the good feeling that religion gives them - they feel  better in some way because they have "faith".  Religion is clearly an emotional thing - it fills a need that many people have.  But religion is demonstrably bad - see any book on atheism and most articles on this site.  So if religion must be replaced - and it eventually will for most people - then what will fill that need?

If we take the definition of religion developed in a recent court case (article here), we have the following:

Morality has changed over the centuries - in civilized countries, slavery is no longer acceptable, women have equal rights, birth control is expected, war is not glorified and many minor taboos have gone.  So it is clear that if a higher power mandated morality, it is not fixed and not absolute.  The average person gets their set of moral standards from their parents and to some extent from society's teachers such as high priests or their modern equivalent but where do they get their rules from?  The short answer is that morality is handed down from earlier generations and is also virtually self-evident.  It is clear that a society cannot function if indiscriminate killing or stealing is allowed.  Society needs trust and that means lying must be unethical or at least minimized.   So there is no need to have an external god, or a representative of such an entity, tell the rest of us what the rules are.