# Believers: How do we know which religion is the correct one? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311 "2010-11-29T18:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/101 "2010-12-02T01:07:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, the cite is dfinitional. You are the omne who is actually making the claim that there is some kind of clinical difference between hallucinating spiders and hallucinating angels. When exactly did I say that there is some kind of clinical difference between hallucinating spiders and hallucinating angels? > [@](#): > > Since you are typically in these threads trying to cite what you believe are revelatory experiences as evidence for God (and have done so indirectly in this thread), then the only kind of relevant experience to this conversation is that which the subject perceives as imparting some kind of information from an external, supernatural source, i.e. “seeing and hearing.” A warm cozy feeling from prayer is not psychotic, but is not very interesting either, and certainly has no evidentiary value. To state the obvious, revelatory experiences are not limited to seeing and hearing, and those which do not involve seeing and hearing are not generally ‘a warm cozy feeling from prayer’. [The Varieties of Religious Experience](http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/james/toc.htm), by William James, has a careful and thorough discussion of, well, the varieties of religious experience. Why don’t you talk about those that exist rather than inventing your own false dichotomies? > [@](#): > > These studies you’re so in love with are base on a fake, tendentous contrived set of criteria for what constitutes a “psychotic experience.” It has nothing to do with brainwaves. If you are seeing and hearing things that aren’t there, that is a psychotic experience by clinical definition. “Psychosis” means you are not perceiving reality accurately. If you think angels are talking to you, you aren’t perceiving reality accurately. > > “Religious experience” has no clinical definition, by the way, and can refer to a wide variety of mundane activities, so the assertion that not all religuous experiences are psychotic is not a very meaningful observation. Well, perhaps you should keep that last point in mind the next itme you’re tempted to claim that you’ve got a medical/neurological explanation for religious experiences. Now, if you’ve got a cite–remember that’s an outside source, not just repeating yourself–that religious experiences are always psychotic experiences, I’d like to see it, but continuing to insist that your claim is true by definition has already failed in this thread and others. Remember, you already told me to “read the papers”, so these papers have to exist. (Unless you read these papers during a psychotic experience, that is.) So tell me what papers you were refering to. If you’re unable to do so, perhaps you should admit that the papers in question don’t actually exist and be more circumspect about making that sort of challenge in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/102 "2010-12-02T01:14:46Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > When exactly did I say that there is some kind of clinical difference between hallucinating spiders and hallucinating angels? I so _love_ word games…but not when they are used to dodge a question. To rephrase the question: Would you say that there is a clinical difference between hallucinating spiders and _seeing_ angels? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/103 "2010-12-02T01:16:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What do you expect when you cite woo? Prove it’s not woo. Show me evidence that people who think they are talking to angels are in fact, really truly talking to angels. Show me actual evidence of the supernatural. Citing book titles is not citing evidence. > > No you didn’t. You linked to a bunch of books. I don’t want to see a bibliography. I want to see the actual hard evidence. If you want to see the evidence, you can read the books and webpages. (Your claim that I only linked to books is flatly untrue.) If you’re going to continue bragging about the fact that you’re not willing to read anything that I link to, then you can’t simultaneously say that you want to see evidence at the same time. And you know perfectly well that I can’t post chunks of copyrighted material here. > [@](#): > > Show me a peer reviewed study… But earlier you said. > [@](#): > > These studies you’re so in love with are base on a fake, tendentous contrived set of criteria for what constitutes a “psychotic experience.” It has nothing to do with brainwaves. So there we see your entire argument condensed in a single post. When shown anything that’s not a peer-reviewed study, you declare that it’s a fake because it’s not peer-reviewed. When shown a peer-reviewed study, you declare that it’s a fake. In that way, you have an airtight proof that everything you disagree with is a fake. Airtight in your own head, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/104 "2010-12-02T01:22:00Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > When shown a peer-reviewed study, you declare that it’s a fake. Wow! I missed that link to a peer-reviewed study-mind giving it again for those who are willing to examine it with an open mind? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/105 "2010-12-02T01:32:02Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is what I mean about you clearly having gotten everything you think you know from apolgetic books and websites and not really being educated. Q is clearly present in Matthew and Luke. They use a common written sayings source in Greek. That is not disputable. It is very disputable and there are people who dispute it. The most famous names in Bible scholarship would be those like William Farmer, Mark Goodacre, and Austin Farrer. [This article by Michael Goulder](http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/goulder.htm) gives references to plenty of others. > [@](#): > > We might not know _everything_ it said, but we know that it said, at a minimum, what is quoted by Matthew and Luke. We do not know for sure whether it existed or not. If it did exist, we do not know what it said, and therefore there’s no basis for the claims that you made about it. How do you know that Q had no resurrection scene? Or that it had no miracles? The traditional approach to Q is simply that it’s the material in Luke and Matthew but not Mark. It’s entirely possible that Q, if it existed, had those particular elements and that Matthew and Luke didn’t need to include them from Q, because they included them from Mark. > [@](#): > > Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Paul most certainly did make a distinction between physical and spiritual resurrections and definitely called people _raka_ (“idiots,” “fools”) for believing that physical resurrection was possible. Where? > [@](#): > > No I didn’t. I back it up by pointing out that [Luke knew Josephus.](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html) Ah yes, Richard Carrier, the man who makes Glenn Beck look reliable by comparison. None of the similarities listed there are conclusive proof of influence. > [@](#): > > Not true. Ehrman does not assign a hard date to Luke, only stating that it could not have been earlier than 80-85 CE, but that it could have been much later. He does not say it had to have before 90, only that 80-85 CE is the earliest _possible_ date. In _Misquoting Jesus_ Ehrman says that Luke and Matthew were written “within at most 20 years” of Mark. (p 135) Having earlier dated Mark to 70 A.D. at the latest, that means he puts Luke at 90 A.D. at the latest, unless my math is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/106 "2010-12-02T01:44:42Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > I’m sensing a bit of defensiveness from you on this. But it’s a relatively innocuous question. Could you list some of the books and/or articles you’ve read about other religions? I can’t recall all of them. I have read _The Book of Mormon_ and the _Koran_. I’ve read James’ _The Varities of Religious Experience_ and Otto’s _The Idea of the Holy_. I’ve read some stuff by Huston Smith about world religion. I’ve read a number of books and journals by people such as Thomas Merton and E. F. Schumacher who not only investigated but practiced different religious disciplines. And a lot more. I’d admit that for the eastern religions I’ve not read many books, but more textbook chapters and articles. I’ve been warned that for a westerner to plunge into Hindu and Buddhist writings without preparation just leads to frustration. I hope I’ll have time to do the preparation sometime. > [@](#): > > I think there are a couple factors at work here for why Christianity gets more criticism than most other religions (although I’ve seen Islam get **plenty** of flak also). For one thing, it’s the dominant religion in the West (both in America and the European Union) which is also where most secular humanists are located. It’s also a proselytizing religion, which means that atheists and agnostics are a lot more likely to encounter Christians in their day to day lives and thus feel moved to argue about Christianity. Yes, but the question I was raising was not why they catch different amounts of flak, but rather why they’re approach with different amounts of honesty. For Mormonism, as demonstrated in a recent MPSIMS thread by an ex-member, it’s quite sufficient to simply tell the truth about Mormonism. Most folks within the LDS Church, once they start learning about the Book of Abraham, changing doctrines, archaeology, and other issues, they’re going to leave and the leaders of that church know it. By contrast, those who attack Christianity have no similar set of truths to attack with, so they make stuff up instead. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/107 "2010-12-02T02:00:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > When exactly did I say that there is some kind of clinical difference between hallucinating spiders and hallucinating angels? > To state the obvious, revelatory experiences are not limited to seeing and hearing, and those which do not involve seeing and hearing are not generally ‘a warm cozy feeling from prayer’. [The Varieties of Religious Experience](http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/james/toc.htm), by William James, has a careful and thorough discussion of, well, the varieties of religious experience. Why don’t you talk about those that exist rather than inventing your own false dichotomies? I’m familiar with William James, and I assure I’ve probably studied mor about religious experiences than you have, and at a more formal level. I studied mysticism obsessively in college, and exprimented with several techniques. I was successful at achieving some of the classic “religious experiences” (including an OBE), and I was not impressed. It was fun and games, but ultimately I recognized that it was all internally generated and that I acquired no new external knowledge or wisdom from it. Having said that, the only religious experiences which are relevant to this conversation are those which could be claimed as evidence for gods. Nothing in what James calls the “universal” religious experience represents any evidence of the supernatural. They are just altered states of consciouness, all of which can be stimulated artificially > [@](#): > > Well, perhaps you should keep that last point in mind the next itme you’re tempted to claim that you’ve got a medical/neurological explanation for religious experiences. Now, if you’ve got a cite–remember that’s an outside source, not just repeating yourself–that religious experiences are always psychotic experiences, I’d like to see it, but continuing to insist that your claim is true by definition has already failed in this thread and others. Remember, you already told me to “read the papers”, so these papers have to exist. (Unless you read these papers during a psychotic experience, that is.) So tell me what papers you were refering to. If you’re unable to do so, perhaps you should admit that the papers in question don’t actually exist and be more circumspect about making that sort of challenge in the future. The kind of religious experiences you constantly try to cite as evidence for sky gods are nothing but psychotic ones. Going to church is a religious experience, but is not evidence for gods. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/108 "2010-12-02T02:01:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I can’t recall all of them. I have read _The Book of Mormon_ and the _Koran_. I’ve read James’ _The Varities of Religious Experience_ and Otto’s _The Idea of the Holy_. I’ve read some stuff by Huston Smith about world religion. I’ve read a number of books and journals by people such as Thomas Merton and E. F. Schumacher who not only investigated but practiced different religious disciplines. And a lot more. I’d admit that for the eastern religions I’ve not read many books, but more textbook chapters and articles. I’ve been warned that for a westerner to plunge into Hindu and Buddhist writings without preparation just leads to frustration. I hope I’ll have time to do the preparation sometime. > Yes, but the question I was raising was not why they catch different amounts of flak, but rather why they’re approach with different amounts of honesty. For Mormonism, as demonstrated in a recent MPSIMS thread by an ex-member, it’s quite sufficient to simply tell the truth about Mormonism. Most folks within the LDS Church, once they start learning about the Book of Abraham, changing doctrines, archaeology, and other issues, they’re going to leave and the leaders of that church know it. By contrast, those who attack Christianity have no similar set of truths to attack with, so they make stuff up instead. All of this is beside the point. How many religions did you study before you decided to choose your particular sect of Christianity, and what did it have that the other religions didn’t? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/109 "2010-12-02T02:07:41Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > [QUOTE=AHunter3] > > I asked God. I was told that all the existing ones are kind of wrong (or at least were heavily cluttered up with overly literal oversimplifications and metaphors that were treated as absolute literal truth). The correct one is, of course, the one I started myself. Are you Joseph Smith? That sounds exactly like him. > [@](#): > > Although I might be wrong. Uh, never mind. Smith never said anything like that. [/quote] The simple FACT of human fallibility — that there _is no source_ of religious wisdom you can ever find that does not (or, where lacking, should not nevertheless) have the disclaimer “I might be wrong” affixed to it — is the first tenet. Do not leave your own judgment at home. It’s your solemn duty to care and to want to understand this stuff for yourself and derive your own conclusions. No one else can do it for you, they can at best give you some useful and stimulating thoughts to consider. ---
**Author:** ![twistedwords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@twistedwords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twistedwords)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/110 "2010-12-02T02:28:47Z")
So ITRChampion you are unable after 24 hours to come up with any credible evidence that a mythological fictional character in a fairy tale called a new testament existed in any historical document? So it is proved then that there was no Jesus who ever existed in any time frame on earth as you cannot come up with one credible source of historical fact. Why can’t you locate any historical record from the egyptians, romans, greeks? Surely if a man had impacted the world as it is said he did there would be so many writings in alexandria and all over rome in that time period. So why didn’t the emperor of rome write it down somewhere? Why aren’t there any records of death as rome had all people put to death written down? Now surely if a man of this importance did live, there would be many historical records of fact and not fictional writing as such in a the bible. the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/111 "2010-12-02T02:30:42Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It is very disputable and there are people who dispute it. The most famous names in Bible scholarship would be those like William Farmer, Mark Goodacre, and Austin Farrer. [This article by Michael Goulder](http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/goulder.htm) gives references to plenty of others. I doubt you even know what those hyptheses actually are or how much support they have. Let me help you. It is indisputable that Matthew and Luke both use a quantity of non-markan material which is word for word the same, in the same order. The explanations are either that they used a common written source (the Q hypthesis which is the strongets and has the most support), or that either Mark or Luke copied the other. The Farrer hypothesis is that Luke copied Matthew, and has some support (though not much), but alternatives to Q are hampered by the fact that the Q material is used in a different order in Luke than Matthew and that neither Matthew or Luke shows any awareness of the other’s nativity or resurrection narratives, an in fact, they wildly contradict each other. > [@](#): > > We do not know for sure whether it existed or not. If it did exist, we do not know what it said, and therefore there’s no basis for the claims that you made about it. We know what it said because we can read it for ourselves, The Q material is the material is that material common to Luke and Matthew which did not come from Mark. That’s what defines it. The only question is where it came from, and that means a commonly shared written source. > [@](#): > > How do you know that Q had no resurrection scene? Because both Matthew and Luke use Mark’s empty tomb story and then wildly diverge where Mark leaves off, indicating that they had no other shared source for a resurrection story. Also because Q does not contain narrative material in general, but only sayings > [@](#): > > Or that it had no miracles? Because it doesn’t. It’s only sayings. > [@](#): > > The traditional approach to Q is simply that it’s the material in Luke and Matthew but not Mark. It’s entirely possible that Q, if it existed, had those particular elements and that Matthew and Luke didn’t need to include them from Q, because they included them from Mark. But they did need it because Mark has no appearance narrative and leaves off at the empty tomb. If Q had syuch a narrative (which would be strange since it contains no other narratiove material), they would have used it instead of eacgh one having to improvise and start making things up. > [@](#): > > Where? 1 Corinthians 15:35 > [@](#): > > Ah yes, Richard Carrier, the man who makes Glenn Beck look reliable by comparison. None of the similarities listed there are conclusive proof of influence. This ad hominem launched at Richard Carrier is based on what? What makes him unreliable? He is a credentialed, peer reviewed historian with a PhD in the relevant field. What about his work, or this piece in particular, is “unreliable?” > [@](#): > > In _Misquoting Jesus_ Ehrman says that Luke and Matthew were written “within at most 20 years” of Mark. (p 135) Having earlier dated Mark to 70 A.D. at the latest, that means he puts Luke at 90 A.D. at the latest, unless my math is wrong. I can’t find my copy of _Misquoting Jesus_, but I do not believe this is an accurate characterization of Ehrman’s position, and even if he does set a terminus of 90 CE on it (which I don’t believe he does), he’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/112 "2010-12-02T02:34:09Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > By contrast, those who attack Christianity have no similar set of truths to attack with, so they make stuff up instead. This is laughable. I can absolutely destroy any case for the historical claims of Christianity. Any time you want to do a thread on it. let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/113 "2010-12-02T02:37:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is laughable. I can absolutely destroy any case for the historical claims of Christianity. Any time you want to do a thread on it. let me know. That’s a great idea! Why don’t one of you take this sidetrack and give it it’s own thread, because I’m interested in talking about the OP in _this_ one. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/114 "2010-12-02T02:37:41Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Matthew and Luke both use a quantity of non-markan material which is word for word the same, in the same order. Missed the edit window. That should be _not_ in the same order. They order the material differently, though it is believed that the original sequence is better preserved in Luke. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/115 "2010-12-02T02:45:23Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > _With God’s existence being taken for a given_, how can we discern what God wants us to do with our lives, and which particular religious institution best represents the will of God? (emphasis mine) **Dio** , **ITR** -This is the premise put forth by the OP. Do you have anything to say about it? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/116 "2010-12-02T02:47:00Z")
My answer is that even if God exists, there is no way to tell what it wants. It does not communicate with humans or manifest its existence or desires in any discernable way. ---
**Author:** ![dzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzero)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/117 "2010-12-02T02:47:10Z")
ITR seems to want proof of a negative. I guess they never covered that in his logic courses, text books or whatever the source of his “reasoning process” happens to be. Our understanding of neurochemical reactions in the brain is still very primitive so the idea of understanding what constitutes a religious experience from any so-called “scientific study” is pure sophistry at its basest level. It is no different than the infomercial for a psychic hotline. It is pure, unmitigated snake oil - or pseudo-science to be a bit more polite. There is no more obligation to disprove such quackery than there is to disprove the alleged effectiveness of the dance a witchdoctor might do. The suggestion is absurd on its face. And it is impossible to disprove in any event. If the ceremony is performed and you get the desired result, well, obviously it was the ceremony. If it doesn’t, oh, well, something must have been done wrong or the timing wasn’t right or [insert excuse here]. How do you think things like astrology persist for century after century when there is absolutely no verifiable scientific basis for it whatsoever? Does that prove that astrology is accurate or valid? Of course not. But exactly what would you do to prove that it’s not? Are you starting to see the point? There is no way to disprove either astrology or your so-called evidence since neither have any basis in reality let alone any scientific basis - despite any superficial trappings to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/118 "2010-12-02T02:50:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > My answer is that even if God exists, there is no way to tell what it wants. It does not communicate with humans or manifest its existence or desires in any discernable way. Given the premise, though, what could be done to find out what it wants? What avenues of inquiry might one take? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/119 "2010-12-02T03:02:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > My answer is that even if God exists, there is no way to tell what it wants. It does not communicate with humans or manifest its existence or desires in any discernable way. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Given the premise, though, what could be done to find out what it wants? What avenues of inquiry might one take? We could rule out certain combinations of goals, powers and personality traits because if God had them it’d intervene noticeably. The “Problem of Evil” disproving the omnimax god being an example of this. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311/120 "2010-12-02T03:14:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > We could rule out certain combinations of goals, powers and personality traits because if God had them it’d intervene noticeably. The “Problem of Evil” disproving the omnimax god being an example of this. So off the top of your head, which religions/sects would be eliminated in this first step? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/believers-how-do-we-know-which-religion-is-the-correct-one/562311.md?page=7)