One more thought:

You also narrow the field based on: “extremely accessible and comprehensive description of history and God’s design and plan within that history for both for himself and humans”

That assumes that any religion without a God with a plan for history is false. Many religions, have neither a single God, nor a plan. These religions are better at explaining the evils we see in the world – childhood disease, war, etc. than religions which have a single omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

Your narrowing criteria seem self serving, designed to point toward your religion as one of a few worthy of consideration.

David

I’m glad that you agree with my basic logic. I’d like to address some of your disagreements:

Your “biggest disagreement” is “the lack of research and criticism of each individual religion.” Given that you begin the next sentence with “Sure, there are hundreds of contradictory religions, each of which holds to differing views on God, salvation, heaven, hell, life, death, and everything else in between” I would say that a short essay can’t delve in detail into all of them. In fact, any one could be the subject of a book by itself. Then you narrow it down —

a coherent, systematic set of beliefs in all of those areas (eliminating the “crazy” ones), a set of beliefs that has been believed for thousands of years (eliminating the “pop-up” religions), and has an extremely accessible and comprehensive description of history and God’s design and plan within that history for both for himself and humans (down to maybe 2 or 3 options).

The problems with your system of narrowing is that:

Your “crazy religion” is someone’s “systematic set of beliefs”.

Something being believed for thousands of years makes it no more likely to be true. Take for example the idea that the earth revolves around the sun — believed by many for thousands of years — not true.

In fact, most people don’t pick religions by systematically studying them and choosing one, they just believe what mom and dad believed.

You assume that because I do not believe I do not know. In fact, I have years of religious education. I can read Hebrew and Aramaic. I can recite portions of the bible from memory. I’ve got a copy of the Book of Mormon. I know all about Allah, Raelians, Rastafarians, Xenu, and Zeus. I have studied eastern religions too. I know how to wash my hands at a Buddhist temple, know to clap my hands twice at a Shinto shrine, have read the Tao Te Ching, and the writings of Confucius.

However, my biggest disagreement with your argument is the lack of research and criticism of each individual religion. Sure, there are hundreds of contradictory religions, each of which holds to differing views on God, salvation, heaven, hell, life, death, and everything else in between – but what if one of them offers a coherent, systematic set of beliefs in all of those areas (eliminating the “crazy” ones), a set of beliefs that has been believed for thousands of years (eliminating the “pop-up” religions), and has an extremely accessible and comprehensive description of history and God’s design and plan within that history for both for himself and humans (down to maybe 2 or 3 options). I think that you owe it to yourself to look into those few religions with an open mind, and if you still find nothing believable, proclaim yourself an educated atheist.

By the way, even if God HAD put a giant sign in the sky, we would still have found a way to explain it away.

David

You are the first person to come close to my objection to Pascal’s wager.

Thank you.

I would explain the fourth paragraph slightly differently.

No religion I know of, not even Pascal’s Catholicism, claims that mere belief in God gets anyone to some desired goal like heaven. Every religion I know claims you must also do some additional actions or believe some additional things. In Protestant Christianity, for example, mere belief that Christ is God is not enough. You must also believe Christ’s death “saved” you. Catholicism, in addition to this belief, also requires participation is certain sacraments.

And, even if all religions are wrong and Pascal’s argument that merely believing in God will get to some paradise is correct, how would you possibly know?

So, in my opinion, Pascal’s wager provides no useful guidance about what to believe.