Is it possible to view religion as an adaptive advantage for humans within the animal kingdom?

Man lifted his face to the heavens, responding perhaps to some arcane stirring and then turned to look within himself, hopeful to connect the distance from sky to self. Was this a moment unique to humanity, the final and explicit separation from the animal? The ability to question not only one’s mortality, but also the impending hereafter makes mankind exceptional. The birth of religion, or the need for worship arises within a group of people bound and held together by the same fears, desires, hopes, beliefs. Does this conjuncture accept then, responsibility for fundamentalism, holy war, genital mutilation, drug consumption, fasting, sacrifice, self flagellation; the imagination can create innumerable ways in which the body can respond to the demands of a religion. In respect to the possibility of religion being an adaptive ‘advantage’ one would have to consider the contrary. Arguably, most, if not all of the issues man creates for himself on this earth, are due to religion, whether it be the lack of or the excess. When something is ‘sacred’ and is threatened, it becomes not just a matter of different opinions between two people or two communities; the argument becomes personal on a different level, the excuse then for resulting consequences more complex and harder to comprehend. With all due respect, call it animal instinct; people inherently need a greater sense of themselves in order to connect each other. This is the basis of all religion. The shaping of a community via the collective consciousness in order to reach some sort of enlightenment be it individual or collective is a primarily advantageous process. The result is tradition, shared moral values, promotion of divinity, love-whatever positive essentials that are the bones of that particular faith. However, it is when the greater good of the whole is neglected in favour of a more individual or selfish purpose, or when love is forsaken for power, and all positive aspects forgotten. That is when religion proves to be damaging. It is like the proverbial argument, what is the danger; the man with the gun or the gun itself? Is religion a nonaligned tool, or is it strictly advantageous or the opposite? The answer can never really be definite. Religion is both good and evil, depending on whose side of the line you are on. Freedom fighter or terrorist? An answer perhaps never to be fully given, unless the context is changed and religion is left out of the equation.