I don't think you understand my post. I'll clarify: Could religion be a functional product of natural selection?

Could there be a gene for a belief in god that has helped tribal people, christians, jews, etc. survive to reproduce?

I don't know if there's a gene or not, but I have seen a study somewhere that pointed to religion as a survival benefit for a society in early development.

Can you point to a single ancient society that had no gods or supernatural beliefs whatsoever? I'm pretty sure you can't.

What would be innaccurate about such a claim(other than the confusing human-wolfpack descriptive)?

The only way tribalism isn't a benefit is if there is a negative consequence to tribalism. Which there is not except in specific circumstances. Those circumstances will generally wipe out the tribe, but leave others unaffected to continue using what has always been beneficial.

Or simply acknowledge that we're as much an animal as any other.

In the process of institutionalizing tribalpackism, religion has also institutionalized racism. Insofar as mankind has behaved as predatory animals, tribalism has all the barbaric benefits to survival as enjoyed by any other predatory animal.

And yet mankind fancies itself erroneously as being better than any other animal. There are differences, to be sure, but mankind is still just as barbaric as any other animal, and as long as he regards the barbaric Bronze Age God of Abraham worthy of being worshipped, he will remain a barbaric Bronze Age animal himself.

We have to get beyond the Bronze Age--at this late date, we're overdue.

Dawkins presents the theory (in "The God Delusion" ) that a combination of our tendency to anthropomorphize things combined with ignorance, led people to posit the existence of gods.

When we explain things, especially those we may not fully understand, ascribing them intent and emotions is very easy. "That bug hates me. The wind wanted to knock over the sign. The rain didn't feel like falling here." You may hear people saying "The computer decided to break." or "My car is in a good mood today." (Mostly in a joking manner from what I've experienced.)

So, we started doing this with natural forces and found it easier to explain things by placing supernatural forces behind them. The gods of wind and rain, the god of the sun, the god of the moon, etc.

As we learn more about the way things work, the need to ascribe intent diminishes.

-Triften

why is there a need to ascribe intent?
is this  trait adaptive?

I was beginning to think I was the lone person here, of that opinion.  I second that wholeheartedly.

Religion has become adaptive, but not genetically, because it is in the interest of its primary beneficiaries (rulers, takers of assets & properties & services) to ensure religion's viability in any given era.

Just comparing the Old Testament to the New Testament is a case in point of religion's adaptive efforts.  In the old, God generally talked directly to prophets who relayed pontifications to the masses, and the masses believed this to be the case.  That wasn't happening in the New Testament.

One line in the Gospel of John sums up what the New Testament testifies to: Jesus Is The One Way To The Father...otherwise said, God's done talking to humans now, and Junior is hereby appointed to be his official screening secretary.  Talk to Jesus or talk to the hand. 

 But the Old Testament is an adaptation of a mixture of old Assyrian and Babylonian mythologies preceeding it; much of it is a blatant plagiarism of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and even the Epic of Gilgamesh wasn't original either--it, too, was an act of plagiarism.

And so it goes.  Humanity clearly has periodically set limits on what it'll believe of its deities, even of Abraham's own God.  Jesus is on record himself as saying to the Pharasees (who challenged him on the matter of divorce) that Moses rescinded the Adultery commandment because, Jesus said, they had hard hearts.

So there you have it, friends n neighbors--hard hearts trump God's Commandments successfully.

It's adaptive by human engineering, not by any kind of divine design--just like science is adaptive to new information, just like military strategies are adaptive to the adaptations a foe might make in  its strife (war strategies are ALWAYS adapting, and studied as a science), etc., as in being ever-refined.

There's still nothing that's either divine or genetic about it. 

what is something that is neither divine nor genetic?

Sure. If some process or methodology doesn't work in the current environment or is supplanted by something more efficient, people stop doing it.

Thatched roofs. They require lots of maintainence (vs. asphalt shingles) and specialized skills to keep in good repair so they generally aren't used.

Rope bridges: We consider the safety of a good concrete and steel bridge to make up for the increased cost and, I believe, they also require less maintainence.

There are some great books on how failure shapes invention and design. I read one about the life of paperclips and silverware (amongst other things). The story of silverware mimics life in the last 100 million years with an explosion of specialized forks, knives, and spoons (Cretaceous), then a die off of most of them (who needs a "tomato fork"?.)

-Triften

There was a study done that suggested that a gene called VMAT2 predisposes individuals to religiosity; however, the study was never academically published and the finding was based on a slight variation in the results. Brain scans preformed on monks while meditating show that the brain experiences changes in area that deal with sensory information, which certainly suggests some type of genetic factor contributing to spiritual experiences. I think that religion certainly was, and possibly still is adaptive. The first wide spread religious document was The Epic of Gilgamesh, and the main theme of the story was of a man's fear of death and search for immortality. This suggests that religion may have originally been selected for as to assuage people's fear of death. A professor of mine believes that religion was selected for to promote group cooperation; I disagree, but we both believe that it was selected for and is not just an evolutionary byproduct. Another fascinating topic related to this is memetics. I will not go into the details, but I would suggest you read about it elsewhere.