What is the function of religion?

[paulpablo]

Many atheists, following or walking in pace with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and the rest (the "New Atheists" as they are called) seem to think religion is simply parasitic. It is conceived as just something that our brains are, due to some imperfection (evolutionary side products) are disposed to believe in. Religions are "memeplexes" without any proper function except spreading themselves.

But how plausible is this? Emile Durkheim and others have had a very different view of things: religion is essentially functional. And when you read the new atheists you recognize how they totally ignore the social and ritual side of religions; they view it only as cognitive "belief-systems". Evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt has claimed (as have many others) that the individualism the the view of the New Atheists implies is at odds with psychological reality.

I have three questions:

(1) What are/is the function(s) of religion?

(2) Should someone who does not believe in the truth claims of organized religions (atheists in particular) change his/her view towards religion if it is accpeted that religion actually has beneficial function for a society that our secular age is in danger of destroying?

(3) How could these functions, if one remains thoroughly secular in one's ethics and thought, be implemented within a secular framework; should an atheist or a secularist develop a secular religion, and if so, what could it look?

(1)
From the perspective of evolution religion has several functions in increasing success.
Help a group of people in times of war, for example in gathering funds, recruiting people, giving comfort to the people about to die and their families, increasing how dangerous the army is by reducing their fear of death and increasing their power of attack for example the 9/11 attacks and the kamikaze pilots of ww2. Also it helps forge alliances.
Calms people down during death.
Increases breeding, especially for example in mormons and muslims where more than one wife is a possibility.
It probably helped morale during the era of Christopher Columbus during long voyages and helped during slave capturing expeditions, converting and enslaving tribes.
It can increase charity, and act as an invisible babysitter.

2.
My view towards religion is that it promotes self deception. Self deception in terms of evolution probably is a beneficial that's why I'm pretty certain all humans have self deception as a part of their mentality.
So to answer the question should I change my views towards religion IF the self deception is accepted as beneficial...
I can't do that because my brain doesn't have the ability to think like that. I can't think to myself "Ok believing this thing that is unbelievable is better for me in terms of breeding and evolutionary success so I will do that now."

3)
I don't really know what a secular religion is.
All of these thoughts and ethics are implemented in secular ways. People don't need religion to be kind enough to be charitable, to have lots of kids , to commit mass murder, to capture slaves or to be riddled with self deception.
Also a lot of these things which help increase success from the perspective of evolution come with consequences, for example being fearless and aggressive in war can be good, but can be bad if these characteristics are causing so much conflict a group of people can't even function as an organized country because of internal conflicts, suicide bombs going off on a regular basis for example.
But if a country or some organization wanted a secular way of being as effective as religious countries at being good at war, breeding, colonizing, slave capturing than there's probably 2 options, leader worship (could be considered to be a religion anyway)
or just use lots and lots of propaganda, probably in the form of patriotism or something along those lines.