The OP is skewed towards the assumption that "Fear of Death" is the primary motivator of religion, yet then goes on to say in combination with "self consciousness" (which is a sketchy and vague statement).
If we just ask outright what are the primary motivations for religion I can certainly accept that "Fear of Death" will be up there. Undoubtedly "fear" is a strong motivating force in humans.
I often compare attributes of religion to patriotism. I think we see one aspect of the motivation here. A sense of identity and of belonging, which I guess is what is being referred to in the OP by saying "self consciousness"?
I have posted on this forum about my view of "religion" elsewhere so I will not go into depth here where I have elsewhere. Generally though I think what people find attractive is themselves and their place in The World. Understanding this and occupying some ideas of finality to these questions probably fill people with hope and a reason to live with the idea of some hidden meaning. This can be viewed by two extreme views as being a ideology that involves refusing to take responsibility or as being a humble approach to life full of humility (a degree of cynicism on at both extremes causes the other to look irrational).
I think none of us like to believe that our lives have no "meaning". That what we do makes essentially no difference. That when we die we come to an end.
I think Socrates hit the nail on the head. Death is like an unopened gift, it may have something inside or it may be empty. What is certain is that whatever death holds is open to pure speculation.
In more modern times "sleep" has been compared to "death" too. I think it was Sartre who went into depth on this idea? (I may be mistaken?) I have seen this discussed briefly on another forum by others, but really didn't go into too much myself.
I myself don't fear death. I do admit I fear the process of dying and pain obviously. I think the whole "religious" attitude of humanity is bound up in our unconscious. For me religion represents (in many cases a distorted and confused representation) the manifestation of inner, and all too human, conflicts common to all people. Some of these conflicts are clearly going to have to face up to the idea of our lives coming to some end.
To give a general idea of what I believe to be the innate motivation for religious attitudes, I would have to say self-understanding. This is very vague I know and covers everything from mortality to ethics and moral ideals. As for religious institutions and how they create a set way of thinking and looking at the world, they all seem to attempt to create some ideal "brotherhood" of humanity, a sense of identity that attempts to reach beyond national boundaries and even beyond a common language to create a sense of togetherness. At once I find this both admirable and naïve/dangerous.
Within these institutions what they tend to play on is not the fear of death itself, but rather the fear of the unknowable proposed "after life". It is a system based on reward and punishment. It tries to take away the decision of the individual to do as they feel and to encourage them to act as if the institution owns the authority on right and wrong. This is why I say above it is at either end of the scale lack of self-responsibility and, at the other, supplication and humility.
What I have looked at elsewhere, in reasonable detail, is the commonality of practices that are embraced by religions (and shown clearly to be used by the likes of Buddha, Jesus and the like all the way back to the ancient Myth of Gilgamesh). All these practices have the potential to induce ASC (Altered States of Consciousness). In these states humans become very open. These states are very revealing and can give the subject a very new and radical turn-around in how they view their day-to-day lives and the lives of others. It is a powerful mental state, and with it comes danger.
My general conclusion is that "religion" is a cast off of pre-religious techniques that helped induce such states. I believe that the prime motivation is about attaining these states and controlling them, although I would add that religious institutions don't really seem to be interested in these practices directly anymore and have moved into geopolitics (especially in practices in originating in the Middle East). Buddhism at least, in part, remains somewhat more on track in its pursuit and investigation into the human psyche and its adherence to meditative techniques seems, to me, to be a throw off from prehistoric shamanic techniques which we know for a fact share numerous techniques to induce ASC's with various religious practices. These include fasting, sleep dep., chanting, sensory dep., trance dancing, hyperventilation, isolation, and a variety of other techniques which all stress the body.
The best way to study this area is to look into anthropology and the newer field of neuroarcheology too. It is worth remembering that anthropologists are generally very unwilling to draw stark conclusions. It is a science and they merely state the facts as they are. Neuroarcheology is a really interesting field because it attempts to use what we know about brain function to deduce what certain practices and artifacts MAY have meant to prehistoric human. I say really interesting because it is willing to speculate a little and explore possibilities (something very much opposed in general scientific research and data collecting).
Colin Renfrew is often labelled as the pioneer in this field so he is a very interesting read.
The motivation for the individual may well be anything from fear of death, to revenge, or simply to feel a part of something "greater" and more important than themselves (or contrary to this to give themselves a sense of import in a vast and seemingly "meaningless" universe).
In the bigger overall picture I neither see "religion" (in the sense I have attempted to outline it beyond the idea of religious institutions) nor science as being good or bad. I do see parties of both sometimes lacking understanding of the primary intent of each for all in each party. We have anti-theists, atheists, anti-atheists, anti-antitheist theists, theists and a number of other divisions. Those that only see atheists and theists are not seeing the broader investigations and oppositions that exist within the human community.It is generally easier, and the natural habit of humans, to attempt to view ideas as two opposing forces. This is the dichotomy of humans that prevails across all areas of investigation because of our rational approach to The World. Even the idea of dualism draws on this dichotomy and has pervaded in human societies creating a schism of convenience. We talk about right and wrong, left and right, black and white, yet we all know often we talk like this where often there are shades of grey and that all these applications are rational either/or applications that do not always necessarily adhere to reality and promote the idea of absolutes where we have no experience of an "absolute" outside of abstract principles.
I realise I have gone off on a tangent here a little. I guess any question I see I look for the motivating factors into the question posed and how the question is being presented in favour of this or that dichotic approach (as it necessarily must to be presented in the first place!). Also, I am putting into practice my writing technique here too for my own selfish/selfless purposes
-- Updated June 9th, 2017, 3:07 am to add the following --
I should add that I am looking at the Origins of Religions here and what it means to humanity rather than our current swathe of religious institutions which I am painting here as the leftovers of a universally human prehistoric tradition.
haha!
