I think it’s quite the opposite.
Taking the premises that:
-
as humans, we have a tendency to surround social constructs with normalization and rigid definitions/rulesets
-
religious dogma implies normalisation and rigid rules and definitions
-
tribe is a group of individuals sharing a common set of social constructs and by derivation also definitions and rules
-
when 2 groups of people who share the same set of social constructs disagree on a fundamental aspect of such derived norms and rules, they split into 2 or more smaller groups, or tribes. (that’s how urban tribes come to existence, for example)
Then I would say that any attempt at sharing religion with a larger audience than a tiny group (most likely comprised of 1 individual) will eventually lead to further division and the creation of many more smaller groups.
And when those groups split, our natural social defensive behaviour will tend to crystallize those rules even further.
Thus leading to proper tribalism.
Agreed.
Exactly why I say that a religious approach would not be helpful.
Given that the only thing that the vast majority of religious institutions actually agree on is that:
“if you question our commandments you will suffer somehow”
…then I honest don’t believe you can.
As a very religious person I can say that one individual, or maybe even a group of - formidable - people can in fact be religious and still be free to explore and study.
But a religious institution would never be able to truly grant you such freedom whilst still maintaining it’s own creed.
We can look back in history for this one, if you want.
Look at cultures where religious institution was closer to youe “library” concept. A very good example are the vkings.
Despite what many believe, the Viking culture was centuries ahead of it’s time in those aspecs, such as having divorce, woman’s rights, freedom to question religion, etc…
At the same time this behaviour made so that they were the hardest culture to be properly converted into christianity… to the point that more than half of christian traditions had to be adapted to fit their customs in order to subvert them (where do you think that Xmas, Easter, etc… as we know, come from?)
But it also made it so that with time passing their religion might still survive, but the religious institution was lost. Exactly for allowing such freedom.
Sorry, but I can’t take that one. 
If we are to attempt to reduce consciousness to a single organ, we just can’t mash 2 organs into one just to fit our theories. 
But this is an interesting point you 2 opened up…
The way I see it, and I believe most of modern science backs me up here, is that the brain can be compared pretty well to a big computer.
That said, let’s play a bit with that concept!
If the brain is a computer, what is conscience? the computer in itself? the OS? a software running inside it? a software running somewhere remote but kicking in all the right buttons of this computer?
Or… let’s keep it less theoretical.
If conscience has to do with how we feel/perceive/are aware of… ourselves… Then if conscience would be contained in a single part of us, then removing another part should not affect our conscience.
As in… if I remove your fridge from your house, would that affect your conscience? but what if I remove your left foot?
Arguably, even some individuals would feel their conscience affected if I took their wallet from them. (That was a non ficticious example. had a schizofrenic patient I dealt with while in uni which I’m thinking of for this example)
Honestly… if we achieve that here, I am sure you’ll get a nobel prize of peace!
If you get 10 people and ask them:
then you will have at least 11 different definitions. 
The more you try to define religion the harder it will be for a group of free-thinking individuals to agree on it.
Ironically, depend on which god… yes, you do have to. because failing to convert others is a failure in the eyes of said god, which leads to the eternal damnation of your immortal soul.
(not joking, that thought is present in a shitload of religions.)
Pretty much! 
That is only true from the point of view of a scientifically oriented individual.
I do agree with you there, and I do agree with that statement.
But if you ask someone else, they might tell you exactly the opposite.
I had a Rabbi friend who used to say something like: “Scientists and political leaders should respect more the traditions instead of keep trying to ‘evolve’ the world”.
Another priest I used to chat at my uni time would not only also repeat that, but add that “attempting to make the world evolve through our science and actions is a futile exercise of our own pride. World should only be made to evolve by acts of god”.
I disagree with them, personally, but I cannot take your statement (which I agree with) as an universal truth.
I could even say that religious leaders who act like you are saying are far wiser! but someone else might think it’s the exact opposite: they are just corrupted or deluded.
I think I do agree with the overarching theme of this point… but I must also note that for far too many religious people it has the exact opposite effect.
In places like where I grew up most people don’t do things aiming to reach heaven. They do things to avoid going to hell.
This posture makes most people reactive instead of proactive. which reaches the opposite of what you are arguing in favour.
Here I disagree completely.
It is perfectly possible for an individual to achieve enlightenment without having anyone he compares himself to.
Not only you have perfectly good examples of functional egotistical sociopaths who honestly believe there is no one better than themselves to compare to. And yet they grow and evolve so much that they make it possible to be functional and productive in our society despite being sociopaths!
My views on Transhumanism are way more focused on looking inside myself and pushing my own buttons to see what I can improve!
It is a journey much closer to my body-mod views than to my religious views.