Spectrum -
One of the main point is the most effective problem solving technique is to find out the proximate root cause and deal with at that level so as to avoid fire-fighting.
...
My thesis is the central motivator [the proximate root cause] of all the MAJOR religions is related to death, i.e. the existential crisis.
I don't understand the first sentence.
If you are suggesting we have existential crisis because we fear death I openly refute this. I am thinking you may be equating existential crisis with death, which is simply a mistake on your part not mine.
From a philosophical perspective we don't tend to move onto evolutionary biology as philosophical means to deal with this question. We stick to philosophy and view the issue of dualism and the mind/body problem so commonly held up to modern focus. What is apparent here is that physical representation does not fulfill us with a sense of "meaning" and "purpose". Further more, if anything, I think we likely conclude that the question of "meaning" and "purpose" in regard to life is a very dangerous/irrational question. The value of life is subjective. What religion does, in a general sense, is covers over the gap that physical science avoids completely (necessarily so). The "feeling" is the realm of religious doctrine. Here the application of philosophical reason paves the way too and we can an obvious cross over and creative of political ideals (be they purely religious ideals or more socially focused). The "religious" apparatus we employ to deal with existential questions appeals to the subjective point of view, where the philosophical apparatus is more focus upon the inter-subjective relations.
By saying "religion" covers up the problem, I meant that it offers the "I don't understand, therefore aliens!" method of explanation. This is no explanation at all, merely a covering up of a certain ignorance/confusion. These of course present themselves elsewhere in religious ideas through contradictions in texts and beliefs, which are again satisfied by the same "covering up" by accepting ignorance or lack of intellectual capacity to deal with the perceived problem/s. It is this technique that is used in eastern mysticism too. The main difference being they tend to not place the answer within some deity, but instead refer to some "force", something physically intangible yet presumed just beyond the horizon of human understanding.
In the above I think I've done a reasonable job of framing the case for "understanding" "knowledge" as being more contingent to existential crisis than merely some fear of death or contemplation of death. After all we first have to contemplate death and to understand our existence in that sense before we come to fear it. Children do not fear death. They are simply unaware of the concept and when presented with it they may be fearful of the idea. Prior to this children are presented with many other basic fears such as "pain". We avoid pain, we don't seek it out without understanding of some other benefit involved (as a simple example, working out at the gym) Religious doctrines certainly teach a certain fear of death, by presenting the idea of an after life being one of punishment or reward. What we see here is the idea of reward at any cost, being part of fundamental religious groups. They are imbued with the ideology of committing religious "sin" for some over all "reward". These are the basic components of learning, teaching and coming to understand the world. We act to our own detriment if we believe the rewards out weigh the costs. As the physical world has no means of literally weighing the cost and value of life, the religious person acts upon their own subjective principles and those cast upon them by the religious institutions. The religious institutions "cover up" the unknown and in its stead place the fountainhead of "Godhood" and "omnipotence", which lies outside human comprehension yet is taken on as direct knowledge. They place belief in something they know they cannot know exists, and yet tell themselves they do know by taking on physicalistic ideals and applying them to insubstantial, non-measureable subjective views. The touch stone for the religious person is safe in its own subjective space, but the flaw is in its extension to others. The touch stone of religious thought is immanent and subjective. The issue is in the extension of subjective into objectivity (which is an easy enough fault to make given that objectivity is basically inter-subjectivity.)
The above is a philosophical investigation of religious structure and thought. Your approach seems to lack simple philosophical grounding by jumping into the assumption of "death" as some fear inducing principle tied into religious ideals as the prime motivator. It looks very much like a mistake of what "existential crisis" means from my position? Is existentialism in general a big motivator for religious thought? Abso-f'in-lutely! From there you have a starting position and it may just be that you have not presented where you move from that position, but I see hints (note all this is me making the assumption you have not done this because I only get to see hints and bots and pieces so ignore if need be) ...
The problem is some religions while dealing with the existential crisis exacerbated the problem by focusing to much of the fear factor.
Yes, as it seems you are by saying the prime motivator is this "fear factor"? This is why I am confused. You present the question of "religion", but also say "some" and then go on to say these "some" somehow represent all that religion is? It makes no sense. The problem is people ask a question about something they don't know and try to explain it. These things are simple and physical at first, such as how to catch dinner, where to go, who is the best mate. After this we begin to ask "Why am I doing all this?", the hedonistic approach to life doesn't to seem to answer all our questions although it is certainly good to enjoy life. What becomes apparent is the need to balance wants and needs of others with our own, look for mutual benefits and common goals. (note: none of this about striving AWAY from death or FEAR, it is about figuring out some idea that is applicable to life, not some fear of death or basic instinct to survive and breed.) If you enjoy something the first thing you do is share it with someone. They may then help you find new pleasure and understanding in the matter, or on the flip side they may lead you down a dark path! The motivation is most certainly not "fear" in this case. What may happen is your curiosity could uncover threats to your understanding and this presents itself as fear. This is something you see as a common exchange between some religious fundamentalists and others. For example you've no doubt heard religious people say things like "how can you not believe in anything? you see no meaning in life? when you die you stop existing? how can you go on living?" These are all views they hold dear and they literally cannot understand because for them to strip away their idealized view of the world would unravel a huge existential crisis. They fear not being able to cope with the big questions, because they view them as the most important questions in life. So much so they even pity the non-believer. They do not see themselves as "ignorant" or "irrational", but rather their subjective "truth" extends into the inter-subjective world, it surpasses and supplants reason because it has a fountainhead of "godhood" or "omnipotence". They have effectively never come to understand The World as an objective reality and only see their beliefs mirrored in society because they lack knowledge.
We know this to be true because we cannot say a physicist would one day deny the use and means of the physical world even if they had some "personal experience" that confounded their general view of the world. On the flip side the religious person can come to deny the use of religious doctrine by learning about the physical nature of the world and the proper application of logic.
The motivator for religious institutions is to focus on subjectivity, to give an "as if" reality to irrational and abstract ideas. The fundamental goal is to frame The World in understanding.
It is for this reason I see that religions are usually taking two distinct paths yet they are so socially entwined that the followers cannot see the distinction clearly enough. These two paths are the application of thought (seen in quite distinct uses of philosophical and logical thought in the texts to cover ethics and morality), and application of opinion/feeling (seen as the subjective view of the world applied as if it possesses objective certainty. It is to believe in a larger certainty than even the rational person would assert.)
I believe the most effective approach is to use Philosophy-Proper [relying on all sources of knowledge] to deal with this terrible problem.
Now you are dealing with a "terrible problem"? My point is that this may not be much of a problem at all and that your "root cause" is making the assumption of some "terrible problem" before you've started looking. If you assume a problem you'll find one.
The problem how I see it is that some people don't understand much about anything and are open to believe anything told to them. This is a problem I guess. What can we do? improve education and rational thought in society, improve empathy and encourage people not to jump to conclusions about X or Y, not to assume too much, but be willing to engage in discussion and force themselves to ask deep and searching questions. Generally I believe people should stare the existential crisis in the face and be bold ... then again if someone is not prepared for this it could go badly wrong and spawn some terrible religious doctrine in the face of this fearful engagement. It is here I agree with you. Sadly the solution seems to be the cause! haha!
What we can take from this is at least a better understanding of the complexity of the problem and then some day someone will present a more workable idea and apply it. At the moment we happen to be living in a time still very much enveloped in the politics of fear. The current clash of developing countries with the technological achievements of the western world has led to an inevitable cultural conflict. I think the west has achieved a very obvious "progression" in the quality of human life and human freedom.
Short of global nuclear war I don't see us entering another dark age anytime soon. I think enough humans are informed enough to muddle through. As always the human concern is only ever going to be with dealing with its own sense of ignorance and knowledge. In this regard I see "religion" in general as being mostly a hindrance to knowledge and as a necessary counter to overt arrogance.
Anyway, continue the good work
I don't think there is a solution because we are simply incapable of framing any particular problem well enough. All we can do is create an abstract and fumble for a solution, that may or may not even stand half a chance of holding up to the reality of the world stage. I believe we should keep at it though and necessarily we will fumble onward with optimism and hope.
My opinion is based on the principle that humans are learning machines. That is all and that is enough for me. The "meaning" or "purpose" of this is simply an overextension. A rock sitting on the side of a mountain is a rock sitting on the side of a mountain. It doesn't have the privilege of thought to ask itself about its purpose of being there. In this sense I am just fascinated, confounded and stupefied by the absurdity of life. It is not hard for me to understand people embracing the idea of "meaning" and "purpose" on a universal scale, but that is not to say I completely find it at fault, and to complicate things it is a useful fault and only a "fault" if left as one. Now I am sounding like a mystic! haha!
My rule is don't blame your actions on GOD (unless you consider yourself a GOD - in a non-omnipotent sense!)
I kind of view the beginnings of most social movements as being one person saying something wise and meaningful and others extrapolating from it to suit their own views and ideals. The wisest write nothing down knowing the folly of the general human populace. They guard against their words being taken out of context. Stupid people like me and you continue to ramble on ever ignorant and hopeful of resolution. Maybe we'll get lucky though? XD haha!