See, the whole "inherently selfish" thing is...kinda wrong. Genetics are inherently selfish, but that doesn't make humans selfish. You don't need to breed for your genes to pass on. Relatives, for example, carry our genes. But we're also genetically programmed to protect our tribe, those we live near and with, and since modern society has widened the concept of tribe (more people around) but we still have that inherent selfish altruism of protecting the tribe it means works like charity are things humans can feel compelled towards by the right juxtaposition of nature and nurture.
I actually had a debate with a friend awhile ago about whether religion was a force for good or bad in the world. She's a person who relatively recently lost her faith and began to identify as atheist, whilst I've been building my atheistic philosophy for awhile now. The debate ended with the conclusion that she felt the charities and good done in it's name outweighed the bad, whilst I felt those charities and good would still be done, that new non-religious charities would be founded, and without the excuse of the dogma of church and religion limiting them they would actually do more good.
And all the bad of religion would be diluted and lessened by not being so organised in it's hate and ignorance (organised hate and ignorance being the bad that can come from religion). Of course the bad would still happen, people are people after all, I just suspect the damage would be lessened.