This is an offshoot of Pascal’s Wager Revisited , where people were discussing the various benefits of Pascal’s Wager.
I submit that the most important aspect to determine is which religion is most likely correct.
I believe that one way to determine this is by age: the older a religion is, particularly among religions that have suspiciously similar stories, the more likely it is to be the “correct” one.
That would be Argumentum ad antiquitatem.
Ruck: Ahh, but the problem is in the definition of “similar”. Is Judaism “similar” to Christianity?
I’d say none are correct. But if I had to pick one, then maybe I’d pick the one with the largest number of adult converts.
Well, personally, I’d argue that whichever religion is most likely correct (assuming there is one), it’s in all probability not yours. Oh wait – I already did argue that.
OK, how about this then. Yes, it’s possible that the oldest religion may have some claim to being more correct simply due to its age. Consider, however, that the older a religion is the more likely it will be infused with all sorts of ridiculous notions that attempt to explain the universe as a result of ignorance and fear. Conversely, the newer a religion is, the more likely that it will accord with what we currently believe to be true as a result of modern scientific inquiry.
Of course, the latter proposition seems to lead to situations where an entire “religion” is based on a God with no discernable properties and which requires nothing of its followers other than belief, as shown in this thread and the one you quoted in the OP. I would submit that these religions, while perhaps non-falsifiable due to their complete lack of claims, can also not be considered “correct” in any meaningful way. Or even considered “religions” for that matter.
You also need to define what you mean by “correct”. If you mean the religion that best describes the nature of God and the proscribed manner of worship necessary to receive his benificence, I would say that you are making an unfounded assumption that there actually is a God in the first place. If there is no God, then no religion that professes his existence is “correct.” If, however, you mean the religion that best teaches its followers to be better people, or best helps its followers find comfort and solace in this life, I think you have a number of qualified candidates.
Finally, define “religion.” Does a religion necessarily have to believe in God, or would you consider any organization where people come together to discuss topics of deep import to be a religion? Is Buddhism a religion? How about Unitarian? What about the Masons?
Regards,
Barry
The only way to determine if a religion is correct is to have said religion’s deity appear, perform some miracles, clearly and consicely explain to everyone why they should be following His/Her religion, and then remain contactable for an indefinite amount of time by anyone who has questions.
Why should only one religion be correct?
Because “all beliefs are equally correct” is also a belief.
According to Southpark:
“The correct answer is the Mormons…the Mormons.”
Ah yes, DtC, but Rowan Atkinson said it was the Jews…“I’m afraid the Jews were right…”
I would take the opposite view. Each successive religion supercedes the older, antiquated religion, like an administrative policy or a new car. Thus Judaism was superceded by Christianity which was superceded by Islam, which was replaced by Bahai, etc. That means that the correct religion is the Church of the SubGenius, brought to us by the prophet Bob.
Slack!
In my biased world, Christianity is the correct one. C.S. Lewis’s book, Mere Christianity** has something to say on the subject as well. It’s something like since Christianity is the world religion that makes the least sense, it is the most likely not to be made up by people.
And John Mace, you seem to make the point that since adults are older, and presumably wiser, they would make the better choices about religion. You have to remember though, that children didn’t elect George W. Bush. Adults did. 
Dern coding. The book is Mere Christianity, not “Mere Christianity**”
Trying to unbold an underline. :smack:
The one that gives a person the best explanation for their experiences, the best support for overcoming their failings, and the best opportunity to become the best person that it is in their capability to be.
Which one is that?
Well, which person are you talking about?
The question is, to an objective thinker, meaningless. Unless the OP was tendentiously trying to set up an answer in favor of his own religion, there is simply no way anyone could answer it without bias. The Japanese have a sensible answer for such a question: mu. In Zen, mu means that the question has no answer, really. (I don’t mean to imply that Zen is the answer to the question! Only that Zen has an answer.)
Agreed, jomo mojo. It’s like asking which way is west of up.
The only proper response is that ZOINKS!! look that Scooby Doo was so good at.
The Unitarians – if anybody is right, they’re on record as agreeing with them! 
Jomo, does that make every cow a Zen Master? 
Might I suggest that all religions are partly right and mostly wrong. Which religion is mostly right (or more wrong) is irrelevant. Each religion has a basis of truth that should be accepted by all even non-theists because their truth is universal. Be good to your fellow man.
Belief in God is personal and individual. Religion extends that belief to encompass a group of people with the same traditions and peripheral beliefs. Religion is for the people. God is for the person.
Why is “being good to my fellow man” a universal truth?
Maybe God changes his choice of the “right” religion from time to time. Or, to steal from The Frantics:
Thomas: “Boy, and the Jews thought they were God’s chosen people.”
St. Peter: “Oh, that was years ago. First it was the Jews for a few thousand years, then God got into Muslem 'cause He liked their hats. Then when they started slicing off hands, God went with the Indians. Then there were the Hopi Indians, and the Aztecs, and–”
Thomas: “What about us Catholics?”
St. Peter: “Oh, He never liked them. The closest He ever got was the Anglicans 'cause He liked Henry VIII’s sense of humor.”
Hey, I was looking for a historical debate, not a philosophical one.
Anyway, first let’s assume that there is a god or gods who created the universe…
I’d assume that he/she/they wouldn’t wait until this late* in the general scheme of things to reveal themselves; I think that’s logical.
Next, to clarify my Argumentum ad antiquitatem…
I’ve heard that the story of Moses was based on an older Sumerian (sp?) story, that the story of Noah’s Ark was based on the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. It seems to me that if 2 religions have very similar stories, then either: 1) the later version ripped off the earlier version, or 2) the early version’s similarities to the truth of the later version were coincidental.
I’ve got to go with #1.
Another point to consider when determining which religion is correct [Rucksinator tries to steer the debate back to where he had first intended it], is how scientifically correct it’s texts (AKA “bibles”) are.
For example, if it could be shown that a 7,000 year old religion has a sacred text that states that the earth is round and rotates around the sun, then I’d be much more likely to believe it than the Old Testament.