A recent paper on religion

From a recent paper The origins of religion : evolved adaptation or by-product? by Ilkka Pyysiäinen1and Marc Hauser:
"Considerable debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively designed system for solving the problem of cooperation."

Discussion of the paper by P.Z. Myers here. Discussion of the paper as well as other theories is in the Seed Magazine article
Why We Believe by Dave Munger. The following appeals to me as it does to the author:
"I’m a little more convinced by Linden’s explanation of religious behavior. He claims it’s a result of the natural tendency of the human cognitive system to fill in gaps. For instance, patients whose brains have been damaged so that their two hemispheres cannot communicate with one another will consistently fabricate elaborate explanations for why one isolated hemisphere acted in a particular way. Similarly, the human visual system works by preserving the illusion that we process an entire scene at once, when in fact we are only able to focus on a tiny portion of our visual field. We simply and subconsciously fill in the rest with our imagination, believing it to be manifest truth. Such may also be the case with religion.

Linden ultimately argues that these beliefs are not incompatible with science, and that science itself is full of beliefs that, like religious beliefs, cannot be proved. I’m quite sure that atheists like Myers would strongly disagree with Linden on this statement. The debate over religion and science—and whether we can study religion scientifically—is likely to continue on for the foreseeable future."

The views of David Linden are apparently expressed in his book 'The Accidental Mind' reviewed here.

A link to Marc Hauser's papers is in the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory site.