Dear Prof, how are you this fine evening,
Well it is morning now, but very well thank you.
No Prof, not a indication of religion, an indication that we are pre programmed ,if the brain does not recognise a, lets say a swirl in a rock, a funny shaped cloud, a weirdly shaped vegetable ( that's a good one ) it will from its vast memory bank make something it recognises, and the vast majority of the time it will be a face, I did it myself today, whilst pondering life and taking the air ( skiving at work ) I looked at a cloud, a shapeless cloud, but not for long, it turned into a foxes face, what the frack do I know about foxes living in a built up area of Glasgow, nothing, and no I am not going mad ( well not madder than usual ) we all do it.
I agree that humans are hard-wired to be inquisitive, to try to work stuff out. But that doesn't equate to 'religion', merely a recognition that our ability to problem solve has huge evolutionary advantage.
But I would also argue that inquisitiveness also equates to questioning and skepticism. So the human brain is hard-wired to work stuff out, but that also means challenging things unless demonstrated to be correct.
And let us not get carried away with ourselves and remember who we are discussing, early man.
And also please remember that this phenomenon is just a very small part of what makes a human being, an interesting part, but very small part, we are very complex creatures.
So Prof, what would early man have made of this phenomenon.
Well I think that early man would have tried to work stuff out and that may have led to a leap from 'why is there fire coming down from the sky' to 'well there must be a kind of super-human in the sky throwing fire at us'. Understandable but wrong, of course. So the lack of intellectual tools that we have available to us today may have led to conclusions that are both wrong and appear religious to us now.
But I doubt that early man would have had this distinction between material and spiritual that Vlad obsesses endlessly about. Nope, they would have bundled everything into how they thought the world was - genuinely there was a sky man throwing down fire, or elephants holding up the universe, or that the sun went round the earth etc. Nope this distinction I think is a much newer phenomenon - one based on increasing evidence base which has largely dismissed supernatural claims and therefore to retain some element of the supernatural it needs to be made distinct from the natural.
There is another element here - much of what we see in spiritual/religious belief is anthropomorphic or anthropocentric - i.e. animals/nature must have human like attributes, god must be effectively a super-human, humans must be at the centre of everything. Completely understandable from an evolutionary viewpoint, but also highly suggestive that these stories are generated by human cultures and societies.
And once again, my argument is simply "Homo religious".
"Homo religiosus" is a concept that proposes that humans have an inherent, natural inclination towards religion, or a religious experience. This idea suggests that humans are not just rational beings, but also beings who seek meaning, transcendence, and the sacred, regardless of their specific religious background. It's a widely debated topic in philosophy, religion, and anthropology, with various interpretations and perspectives.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Core Idea:
Inherent Religious Drive:
"Homo religiosus" posits that humans have a fundamental, built-in need or drive to find meaning beyond the material world, often expressed through religious beliefs and practices.
Beyond Materialism:
It suggests that human existence is not solely defined by scientific understanding and material needs, but also by a desire for the spiritual and transcendent.
Universality:
The concept argues that this religious inclination is a universal aspect of human experience, present across different cultures and throughout history.
Variations and Interpretations:
Eliade's Perspective:
Mircea Eliade saw "homo religiosus" as a fundamental aspect of human nature, where the sacred and profane are intertwined in various proportions. He emphasized the importance of sacred spaces and rituals in shaping religious experience.
Jünger's Perspective:
Ernst Jünger viewed "homo religiosus" as a human need for religion, which could be filled by various systems of belief and practice.
"Homo religiosus" as a starting point for ethics:
Some scholars use "homo religiosus" to explore the origins of morality and ethics, suggesting that religious beliefs and practices can shape our understanding of good and evil.
Counterarguments:
Naturalistic Explanations:
Some argue that religious beliefs are not innate but rather cultural or social constructs that evolved to fulfill certain psychological or social needs.
Atheism/Secularism:
Atheists and secularists may reject the notion of an inherent religious drive, arguing that human nature can be understood without reference to religion.
Key Considerations:
Evolutionary Origins:
Some researchers explore the evolutionary origins of religious behavior, seeking to understand how and why religious practices may have emerged in human societies.
Religious Freedom:
Cambridge University Press & Assessment examines the concept of "homo religiosus" in relation to religious freedom, exploring the philosophical and ethical dimensions of the right to practice and believe as one chooses.
To end Professor,
Homo Religiosus-culture, Cognition, Emotion put this into your gizmo, your lap top, computer, but the conclusion is and our Gordon will like it with his irrational rational brain 
the link is far to long to post but here is the conclusion.
5. Conclusions
At this point the scientific opinions on “Homo religious” are divided, or they constitute a complex
understanding of this phenomenon. On one side lies researchers that argue the religious feeling is a cultural
phenomenon that has evolved with the development of human society; on the other hand we find neuro-imaging
studies indicating that in the human brain there are very well defined areas activating under the influence of
religious stimuli. The last category of views, in which we stand, suggests that religious feeling is a complex
phenomenon, with clear biological basis, and socio-cultural extensions.
Whatever view we accept, we are witnessing now the presence of simultaneous rational and irrational in a
world increasingly technicist and accurate. In terms of mental health, the concomitant presence of rational and
irrational in many people creates discomfort and imbalances of different amplitudes.
The last category of views, in which we stand, suggests that religious feeling is a complex
phenomenon, with clear biological basis, and socio-cultural extensions.
A clear biological basis, go on Prof admit it, we are Homo Religious" and more so much more, well I am 
Gonnagle.
Oh dear - what a lot of words, what a lot of bolding for unevidenced guff.
So you think religion is nature rather than nurture - well we are actually doing that experiment right now.
The UK is societally pretty agnostic in terms of whether someone is religious or not - so people can choose whether or not to be religious. Now if religion was nature rather than nurture you'd anticipate that the 'religious' gene (as it were) would predominate. So someone brought up (nurture) non-religious would likely find that 'religion' gene kicking in and would more often than not end up religious. The flip-side being that bringing up someone as religious (nurture) would be unnecessary as nature will just do its business and a religious adult will develop.
Is this what we see in our real world experiment - nope, not a bit. For someone to be religious as an adult it is pretty well a prerequisite that they were brought up religious (nurture) and actually pretty well universal that they will have been brought up in a specific religion that they retain as adults. Yet loads of people nurtured as religious end up rejecting religion as adults (they simply don't believe it) - that wouldn't happen if your thesis were correct. Yet bring someone up non-religious and they will almost certainly end up non religious as an adult.
So rather than there being a 'nature' push to being religious, there appears to be a 'nature' push to being non religious, which is only prevented by (often very heavy handed) societal and familial nurture to be religious.
Bottom line - faith and religion are learned, not inherent, traits. Or christian missionaries would have stumbled across previously 'unfound' tribes who seemed already to be christian. Never happens.
