I feel I should give a nutshell critique of your manifesto here.
You are clearly trying to promote an idea based on some kind of epiphany
that you've had, but you've not done enough homework to justify turning a
hypothesis into a "philosophy."
Firstly, your definition of religious thinking suffers the same
flaws that Sigmund Freud made in his work THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION. In
this work, Freud pulled a definition of religion out of thin air based on
his own western-protestant prejudices, further flavored by semantic
relations found in his native German language ("this is synonymous with
that").
There has been a huge amount of research in the fields of
Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, and Comparative Religion (and a
consequent huge body of scholarly work) seeking to arrive at a definition
or characterization of "religion" that can apply universally to all
cultures. It's tougher than most people might think. "Faith" and
"humility" are not universal, for example.
If you care to get a start on a more all-encompassing definition
of religion, start with Emile Durckheim's work, then look at Weber &
Mauss, Malinowski, Bataille, and Foucault. Forget Jung, Campbell, Freud,
and Frazer. Too cluttered with myth and archetype.
You further complicate your approach by attaching
biological/functional attributes to religion, little or no hard-science
citation. Please give a more convincing, empirical argument. Science is no
place for semantic games.
Good luck.
CPM
