Pascal's Wager

[valis]

This is like asking what kind of person was I before I was conceived.

That was my point.

 

[Beady]

I have reasoned that I will belive God created the Universe until proven otherwise. As soon as there is one scintilla of evidence otherwise I will consider it.

We've got a reasonable idea of what happened. Why add God to the mix? If a perfectly ordinary explanation will suffice, what is the purpose of adding an extraordinary element?

I don't mix science and religion. Religon to me is for areas beyond science.

I could live with this, if you change "beyond" to "outside of." By which I mean the five criteria of science, as outlined in McLean v Arkansas, 1974:

• Science is concerned solely with the physical universe
• Science seeks answers with reference to physical law
• Scientific propositions are testable
• Scientific propositions are falsifiable
• Scientific conclusions are tentative

Notice, though, that your statement above, "As soon as there is one scintilla of evidence otherwise I will consider it," is rendered meaningless and faithless. You are demanding evidence for God's noninvolvement, while rejecting the process and criteria by which the evidence is to be gathered and judged. In short, you're setting science up for failure.

 

[valis]

Of course there are costs involved in being religious.

Some of them may even be financial. Here's a few:

Time. Many religions demand a significant investment of time to observe their rituals. This may be daily, weekly, monthly, whatever. There may be a daily requirement for less formal activities, but it's all time.
Money. Tithing still exists in many churches. Some churches may also demand pilgrimages for atonement etc. These are not cheap.
Restriction of mating potential. Many churches frown on a member's marrying outside their religion.
Loss of family. Sometimes changing religion will ensure separation from your own family as will leaving their religion.
Health. JW anybody? They're not the only religion to come down against blood transfusions.
Education. Do I need to cite how the fundamentalists are trying to destroy science education to fit it in with their literalist interpretations of events in their holy books?
Freedom. Many decisions are simply taken away from the adherent, to be made in accordance with the rules of the holy books.
Life Experience. Many of these are frowned upon or outright banned by Churches, even though legal in secular society.
Civil Rights. In many churches, women have a subservient role and cannot participate fully in ceremonies and are considered incapable of interpreting scripture themselves.
Self-respect. Many religions regard common and natural human bevaiours as sinful and stimulate an over-powering sense of guilt among its adherents as a way to keep them on the straight and narrow. Hell, in xtianity, the child is guilty of serious sin even as it is born! No wonder they cry immediately.

These are just a few of the costs at the personal level. At the level of society there are more:

Violent tensions between religious groups which break out into war. Frequently.
Repression and censorship of literature, philosophy, science.
The weak and the less-intelligent being preyed on for their money.
Dehumanising of those of other religions.
Religious lobbying which impacts sections of society.
Application of religious laws which apply to even non-adherents of that religion.
Exclusion within society of minority religions or disbelievers.

These are merely a few. I could add many more, but the point is made that the costs are very high indeed.

I truly wish I had the time to comment on each of the above. In short I will paint them all with the same brush. If you think any of the behaviours above are caused by religion and would not exist in a world of rational atheists I think you and I have totally opposing views of human nature.

Try to imagine a world run by Ayn Rand and Madelyn Murray O'Hara.

 

[valis]

We've got a reasonable idea of what happened. Why add God to the mix?

I don't belive we do. I think we have a good idea what happened a very small amount of time after the creation of the universe. In fact a mind boggilingly small amount of time. But we can't know what set it in motion it lies Outside or or Beyond; I would use those terms interchangeblly.

You are demanding evidence for God's noninvolvement, while rejecting the process and criteria by which the evidence is to be gathered and judged. In short, you're setting science up for failure.

I am not demanding anything.And as I said science should not enter into it. There is no process I know of to gather or judge evidence from a place we can't go or observe,and in fact that defies the definition of time or place.

 

[dv82matt]

valis, I somewhat agree with your initial critisism of Randi's take on Pascal's Wager, although he is essentially just saying that he doesn't think it's a good bet, the more salient point to me is that it's based on a false premise.

I wonder if you would agree that any God belief is inherently an abdication of logic since it is not based on evidence.

 

[NiallM]

I truly wish I had the time to comment on each of the above. In short I will paint them all with the same brush. If you think any of the behaviours above are caused by religion and would not exist in a world of rational atheists I think you and I have totally opposing views of human nature.

Try to imagine a world run by Ayn Rand and Madelyn Murray O'Hara.

Pick a couple then. Pick tithing, guilt, time spent observing the religious rituals that go with membership, along with the health risks that obtain with certain belief systems.

I have no intention of imagining a world run by your examples. There's simply no point because you are proposing a false dichotomy. By asking me to, you are inferring that that is the alternative option. Nobody - Pascal included - suggested that that was the case.

I'm interested to hear how a rather smaller brush - applied to the points that I have pulled out - will demonstrate that they are not costs.

ETA: Since you haven't addressed even one of my points, I will use an illustrative example to demonstrate the cost of one of my examples.

I mentioned the cost to education of religious belief.

Here in France education is determinedly secular. As a result we do not have the xtian fundamentalists hammering away at Science eduation and trying to force their version of events on our children. Creationism is not taught in the schools and will never find its way into the science books.

In America we have seen the repeated and costly efforts to dilute the science curriculum and to enforce side-by-side teaching of creationism and evolution. The efforts to maintain the integrity of the science teaching have absorbed huge resources that could be better used in the schools: enormous amounts of time and energy are spent by educators defending the syllabus; enormous amounts of money are spent on court cases to defend science; scientists themselves have to spend time away from the field, away from their labs, to prepare for, and testify in, court cases. This is, quite simply, a waste of resources, money and energy, and is equally clearly, a cost.

 

[Beady]

I am not demanding anything.And as I said science should not enter into it. There is no process I know of to gather or judge evidence from a place we can't go or observe,and in fact that defies the definition of time or place.

Then please explain the underlined part:

"I have reasoned that I will belive God created the Universe until proven otherwise."

Proof demands evidence, therefore you are demanding evidence as a requirement for changing your mind. Proof and evidence are the province of science, therefore you, yourself, are subjecting the question to science. By your own criteria, science enters into it.

However, you have also effectively said there is no evidence that you will accept. You, yourself, are stating that your conclusion is definite, not tentative. Your implied offer to change your conclusion upon presentation of sufficient evidence was therefore either dishonest or illogical.

 

[dv82matt]

Pick a couple then. Pick tithing,

Atheists may also choose to give to what they consider worthy causes.

guilt,

Do atheists never suffer from guilt? Religion may also be used to assuage guilt.

time spent observing the religious rituals that go with membership,

If one enjoys these rituals pehaps they are benefits and not costs.

along with the health risks that obtain with certain belief systems.

It may be wise to choose a faith that does not compromise your health.

I have no intention of imagining a world run by your examples. There's simply no point because you are proposing a false dichotomy. By asking me to, you are inferring that that is the alternative option. Nobody - Pascal included - suggested that that was the case.

I think you missed the point. Many of the "costs" you are attributing to religion are really products of human nature.

 

[SezMe]

Because that's not what agnosticism means. Agnostics claim that the question of whether god exists or not is something which cannot be proven known, leaving it as a matter of faith to believe or not believe.

There, I made a nit-picky correction because even religion doesn't claim to prove god exists; it is a matter of faith. That said, reading my post that you replied to, I don't see that we disagree.

 

[SezMe]

In my posts 54 and 55, I used "dv82matt" when I should have used "valis"

My bad.

 

[dv82matt]

No. It is believing in an effect without a cause. In the present case, a Christian has to believe that god "sent" Jesus to earth to redeem mankind ('cause if you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, by definition). So god is the (sole and only) cause and Jesus is the effect. But then to be unsure of the existence of god, would necessarily imply an uncertainty about the Jesus and the resurrection.

QED.

Would this argument apply to any God concept where God is believed to be the cause of something, or does it only appy in some cases? I can see that it would be conceptually difficult to maintain both positions simultanouesly but could that be an artifact of our limited ability to reason rather than with the position itself?

 

[dv82matt]

In my posts 54 and 55, I used "dv82matt" when I should have used "valis"

My bad.

No problem. Truth be told I hadn't noticed it until just now.

 

[NiallM]

Atheists may also choose to give to what they consider worthy causes.
Do atheists never suffer from guilt? Religion may also be used to assuage guilt.
If one enjoys these rituals pehaps they are benefits and not costs.

It may be wise to choose a faith that does not compromise your health.

I think you missed the point. Many of the "costs" you are attributing to religion are really products of human nature.

Atheists "may choose". That is the point: choice.

As for guilt: atheists aren't born with guilt; atheists don't feel guilty about enjoying, for instance, pre-marital sexual relationships; in a secular country one isn't forced to endure insitutionalised guilt - which is forced on its members by a moral code which exceeds the requirements of law and of concern for your fellow humans. Guilt is, of course, a human construct, but the atheist who feels guilty probably does so as a result of an act which he knows to have been either illegal or which he knows to have hurt or exploited someone. However, he will not necessarily feel guilt at the desire to do any of this if he hasn't acted on it. Yet in most churches the mere presence of a perfectly normal human impulse is considered sinful and tantamount to *acting* on that impulse. I reject your claim that religion "assuages" guilt; rather it highlights it, it emphasises it, it imposes threats of the direst consequences, and it uses guilt rather than simple concern for your fellow-man as a means to coerce behaviours.

It's not merely a matter of "enjoying" these rituals. Attendance demands more than simple respect for the spectacle. You must buy in to them too. Intellectually and emotionally. I must attend them with my heart and soul; I must commit to their demanded behaviours; I must swear to bring my children up in accordance with their creeds. In many cases, I must also commit my children's education to them. This is not simply a matter of wearing a collar and tie and turning up for the regular services. The churches themselves are very explicit about this.

Regarding choice of a faith that is not injurious, what about the injuries visited by churches on people who have no choice. What about the JW parents who won't allow a life-saving transfusion to be administered to their child? What about the misinformation that is peddled to them by their church as to why it is not allowed? WHat about the mutilation that is circumcision? Your point is glib and offhand. Many people - either thorugh the society in which they were born, or their parental adherence to obnoxious, illogical and dangerous practices, or through overwhelming pressure of their peers, have no real choice in their religious affiliation.

I am aware that some of things things are part of human nature. Religion exploits this, though, in instituting rigorous formalities around them and ensuring their continuation - even for such heinous policies as refusing blood donations. Only when we recognise this things and deal with them in a human and humane way can we progress. Religion stifles that progression to the detriment of all humanity.

 

[dv82matt]

Atheists "may choose". That is the point: choice.

You seem to be assuming that theists "may not choose". This may be the case in some situations but it does not seem to be true in valis's case.

As for guilt: atheists aren't born with guilt; atheists don't feel guilty about enjoying, for instance, pre-marital sexual relationships; in a secular country one isn't forced to endure insitutionalised guilt - which is forced on its members by a moral code which exceeds the requirements of law and of concern for your fellow humans.

Would an atheist feel guilty about practicing bigamy? Should they? Your point is well recieved but it is a bit of a generalization. You are also assuming that it is inappropriate to feel guilty about pre-marital sexual relationships but that is not nessessarily a given, fundamentalists for example would likely disagree.

Guilt is, of course, a human construct, but the atheist who feels guilty probably does so as a result of an act which he knows to have been either illegal or which he knows to have hurt or exploited someone. However, he will not necessarily feel guilt at the desire to do any of this if he hasn't acted on it. Yet in most churches the mere presence of a perfectly normal human impulse is considered sinful and tantamount to *acting* on that impulse. I reject your claim that religion "assuages" guilt; rather it highlights it, it emphasises it, it imposes threats of the direst consequences, and it uses guilt rather than simple concern for your fellow-man as a means to coerce behaviours.

In many cases this is accurate but far from all. Being an atheist is no guarantee against inappropriate feelings of guilt, nor is theism guaranteed to produce them.

It's not merely a matter of "enjoying" these rituals. Attendance demands more than simple respect for the spectacle. You must buy in to them too. Intellectually and emotionally. I must attend them with my heart and soul; I must commit to their demanded behaviours; I must swear to bring my children up in accordance with their creeds. In many cases, I must also commit my children's education to them. This is not simply a matter of wearing a collar and tie and turning up for the regular services. The churches themselves are very explicit about this.

Just because you do not see the things that you mention as benefits does not mean that others will not.

Regarding choice of a faith that is not injurious, what about the injuries visited by churches on people who have no choice. What about the JW parents who won't allow a life-saving transfusion to be administered to their child? What about the misinformation that is peddled to them by their church as to why it is not allowed? WHat about the mutilation that is circumcision? Your point is glib and offhand.

This is irrelevant. We are talking about the choice to practice a religion.

Many people - either thorugh the society in which they were born, or their parental adherence to obnoxious, illogical and dangerous practices, or through overwhelming pressure of their peers, have no real choice in their religious affiliation.

Or lack of it, if it were to come to that.

I am aware that some of things things are part of human nature. Religion exploits this, though, in instituting rigorous formalities around them and ensuring their continuation - even for such heinous policies as refusing blood donations. Only when we recognise this things and deal with them in a human and humane way can we progress. Religion stifles that progression to the detriment of all humanity.

Indeed it does. But don't paint all religions with the same brush just because some of the most prominent ones are so dispicable. And don't neglect the fact that there are positives to religion as well as negatives. For better or worse many people seem to have a 'need' for a God belief. Such people can make a positive contribution to society whatever you may think of their religious tendencies.

 

[Anders W. Bonde]

Valis,

Two questions:

1) How can you belive in specifically the xian god/xianity if no-one had told you about it?

2) What created god?

 

[SezMe]

Would this argument apply to any God concept where God is believed to be the cause of something, or does it only appy in some cases? I can see that it would be conceptually difficult to maintain both positions simultanouesly but could that be an artifact of our limited ability to reason rather than with the position itself?

Dunno. Your post reminds me of that old question, "Can god create a four-sided triangle?" Seems to me that if you have a cause that is the sole and only cause of an effect, and you have no doubt about the effect, then you must therefore have no doubt about the cause....no matter what the cause and effect are.

Maybe one of our resident philosophers/logicians can point out an error in my argument if there is one.

 

[NiallM]

You seem to be assuming that theists "may not choose". This may be the case in some situations but it does not seem to be true in valis's case.
Would an atheist feel guilty about practicing bigamy? Should they? Your point is well recieved but it is a bit of a generalization. You are also assuming that it is inappropriate to feel guilty about pre-marital sexual relationships but that is not nessessarily a given, fundamentalists for example would likely disagree.
In many cases this is accurate but far from all. Being an atheist is no guarantee against inappropriate feelings of guilt, nor is theism guaranteed to produce them.
Just because you do not see the things that you mention as benefits does not mean that others will not.
This is irrelevant. We are talking about the choice to practice a religion.
Or lack of it, if it were to come to that.
Indeed it does. But don't paint all religions with the same brush just because some of the most prominent ones are so dispicable. And don't neglect the fact that there are positives to religion as well as negatives. For better or worse many people seem to have a 'need' for a God belief. Such people can make a positive contribution to society whatever you may think of their religious tendencies.

I never stated that everything associated with religion is bad. What I *am* pointing out is that there is a cost to religious adherence. The question is whether the putative benfits outweigh the costs.

And, no, I think that to say that we are talking about the choice to practice a religion is to ignore real world conditions. There are communities in America where adherence is more than a simple matter of following the prevailing religious trend. Looking further than them, we can see sharia-run locales where there is no choice whatever about following, and the alternative is simply not an option. Even in more moderate climes, familial as well as societal pressure can be overwhelming for many.

It's not as if we are left until we have achieved our majority and are then shown powerpoint presentations of the world's major religions and asked then which one we'd like to sign up to. By that stage, many have been thoroughly indoctrinated, robbed of body parts (in extreme cases), are under the influence of a powerful, paternalistic and misogynistic ruling elite.

To ignore that and to retreat to a position where we all have the choice to avail or not to avail of Pascal's Wager is to hypothesise a dream world.

And the real-world example utterly undermines the exercise by showing the dreadfully high cost involved in religious adherence, anyway.

Both ways, the Wager is dead in the water, and can be seen for what it is: an act of whimsy and the results of a not very well thought through piece of intellectual masturbation.

 

[NiallM]

Point by point:

You seem to be assuming that theists "may not choose". This may be the case in some situations but it does not seem to be true in valis's case.

No. I'm not assuming. I'm asserting. An enormous amounts of theists have no choice about being theists and have even less about whih form of theism they must practice.

Would an atheist feel guilty about practicing bigamy? Should they? Your point is well recieved but it is a bit of a generalization. You are also assuming that it is inappropriate to feel guilty about pre-marital sexual relationships but that is not nessessarily a given, fundamentalists for example would likely disagree.

I don't know where bigamy came from, but, yes, if an atheist lives in a society where bigamy is illegal, he or she may feel guilty about it - or at least fearful as to the consequences if said bigamy is discovered. Bigamy is almost uniquely an act committed by only one of the partners, by the way. I struggle to find a pattern of two people bigamously marrying each other with each other's knowledge. I would certainly feel that it would be a gross manipulation of the affections of another person to marry them while remaining married to another. I would be telling the grossest lies in that instance and would be potentially ruining their life. I would certainly feel some anguish about the possible legal outcome as well as the outcome when they - and the third party involved - discovered my deception.

In many cases this is accurate but far from all. Being an atheist is no guarantee against inappropriate feelings of guilt, nor is theism guaranteed to produce them.

I never proposed that atheism is a prrof against feelings of guilt, but I will strongly maintain that guilt is an inevitable and inextricable aspect of xtianity as well as other religions. xtianity even imposes sin on new-borns. One of its major sacraments is confession! Atonement is one of the keystones of many religions. I notice that you haven't responded to my point about normal human urges being considered equal - as sins - to the deed of acting on these urges. That is a crucial difference between atheism and theism. I can carry a lustful thought as an atheist and dismiss it without acting on it. Result: a rueful acknowledgment of the human condition. A theist, on teh other hand, has already committed a sin, and is burdened with that sin until he or she is absolved of it by confession and penance.

Just because you do not see the things that you mention as benefits does not mean that others will not.

The benfits that you mentioned about observing religios ceremonies are purely aesthetic. I as an atheist sometimes drop in on religious services in various Cathdrals. They knew their music, their acoustics, and their harmonies, did the church. The point about others having a different view is precisely the reason I am typing here. The wrold would be rather dry, and debate rather irrelevant if everyone agreed at all times.

This is irrelevant. We are talking about the choice to practice a religion.
Or lack of it, if it were to come to that.

I've covered that in my previous post.

Indeed it does. But don't paint all religions with the same brush just because some of the most prominent ones are so dispicable. And don't neglect the fact that there are positives to religion as well as negatives. For better or worse many people seem to have a 'need' for a God belief. Such people can make a positive contribution to society whatever you may think of their religious tendencies.

Replace "some of the most prominent ones" with "all of the most prominent ones", and you're getting there. The barbarity and inhumanity that has been inflcited by organised religions is too well-documented to ignore. Their collusion, encouragement and blessings have followed and buoyed up their adherents as they have maimed, murdered, raped, pillaged and tortured those who didn't share the same ideas. It's the history of man.

This "need" you speak of, though. What is that other than a fear of what lurks beyond the light of the fire around which we huddle? What is it other than a fear of what happens when our elders die? What is it other than a hope that we can all eventually be reunited with our loved ones? Fear, fear again, and hope. All eminently human conditions. Nothing supernatural about them at all. And what's more, they're things which can be addressed and dealt with one at a time - without need for a divine recourse, or the promise of a grand reunion party in the celestial sphere.

The need for something as abstruse as comfort in teh face of an unremitting life cycle doesn't in itself confer any credibility of any religion which attempts to explain it. And when the price is as high as I perceive it to be, then it appears that there is no place for religion in the human condition.

 

[dv82matt]

I never stated that everything associated with religion is bad. What I *am* pointing out is that there is a cost to religious adherence. The question is whether the putative benfits outweigh the costs.

Well you only listed the costs and not the benefits. Do you feel that there are no benefits? (Other than heaven if it's true.)

And, no, I think that to say that we are talking about the choice to practice a religion is to ignore real world conditions. There are communities in America where adherence is more than a simple matter of following the prevailing religious trend. Looking further than them, we can see sharia-run locales where there is no choice whatever about following, and the alternative is simply not an option. Even in more moderate climes, familial as well as societal pressure can be overwhelming for many.

But that's what we were talking about. I still don't see the relevance of bringing people who don't have a choice into it. Obviously if they don't have a choice they don't have a choice. What is there to discuss?

It's not as if we are left until we have achieved our majority and are then shown powerpoint presentations of the world's major religions and asked then which one we'd like to sign up to. By that stage, many have been thoroughly indoctrinated, robbed of body parts (in extreme cases), are under the influence of a powerful, paternalistic and misogynistic ruling elite.

There are all kinds of things that figure into a person's choice. It's not always as draconian as you make out to be though. Many Christians lead quite happy lives.

To ignore that and to retreat to a position where we all have the choice to avail or not to avail of Pascal's Wager is to hypothesise a dream world.

I realize that not everyone has a choice. And that even those that do have a choice are heavily influenced by a number of factors like upbringing, culture, religion and nationality. So what? Every choice that we make is influenced in this way. Do you think that nothing influences your own choices?

And the real-world example utterly undermines the exercise by showing the dreadfully high cost involved in religious adherence, anyway.

Only to some people. There are rational people who choose to be religious you know.

Both ways, the Wager is dead in the water, and can be seen for what it is: an act of whimsy and the results of a not very well thought through piece of intellectual masturbation.

Well yes, the wager is dead in the water no matter what. Anyone who uses it as the basis of their choice to be religious is making an ill informed choice.

 

[dv82matt]

No. I'm not assuming. I'm asserting. An enormous amounts of theists have no choice about being theists and have even less about whih form of theism they must practice.

Okay asserting then. I don't see much practical difference.

I don't know where bigamy came from,

Same place as premarital sex did apparently.

but, yes, if an atheist lives in a society where bigamy is illegal, he or she may feel guilty about it - or at least fearful as to the consequences if said bigamy is discovered.

Perhaps one could assuage ones feelings of guilt by joining a cult then. Or are you saying that feelings of guilt would be appropriate in this case?

Bigamy is almost uniquely an act committed by only one of the partners, by the way. I struggle to find a pattern of two people bigamously marrying each other with each other's knowledge. I would certainly feel that it would be a gross manipulation of the affections of another person to marry them while remaining married to another. I would be telling the grossest lies in that instance and would be potentially ruining their life. I would certainly feel some anguish about the possible legal outcome as well as the outcome when they - and the third party involved - discovered my deception.

Right I agree.

I never proposed that atheism is a prrof against feelings of guilt, but I will strongly maintain that guilt is an inevitable and inextricable aspect of xtianity as well as other religions.

Historically that may be true but there has been a significant liberalization of many sects of Christianity over the last half century or so.

xtianity even imposes sin on new-borns.

Somedenominations do. Emphasis on 'some'.

One of its major sacraments is confession!

You're talking as if all denominations are identical. This is mostly a Catholic thing.

Atonement is one of the keystones of many religions.

Indeed it is.

I notice that you haven't responded to my point about normal human urges being considered equal - as sins - to the deed of acting on these urges. That is a crucial difference between atheism and theism. I can carry a lustful thought as an atheist and dismiss it without acting on it. Result: a rueful acknowledgment of the human condition. A theist, on teh other hand, has already committed a sin, and is burdened with that sin until he or she is absolved of it by confession and penance.

Some theists, not all theists, not even all Christians. There is much variety to choose from.

The benfits that you mentioned about observing religios ceremonies are purely aesthetic. I as an atheist sometimes drop in on religious services in various Cathdrals. They knew their music, their acoustics, and their harmonies, did the church.

I'm not sure that it would be purely aesthetic to a person who truly believed though.

The point about others having a different view is precisely the reason I am typing here. The wrold would be rather dry, and debate rather irrelevant if everyone agreed at all times.

Agreed.

Replace "some of the most prominent ones" with "all of the most prominent ones", and you're getting there. The barbarity and inhumanity that has been inflcited by organised religions is too well-documented to ignore. Their collusion, encouragement and blessings have followed and buoyed up their adherents as they have maimed, murdered, raped, pillaged and tortured those who didn't share the same ideas. It's the history of man.

Yes, it is the history of humanity. I think you could make an equally compelling case against the nation state as you could against religion however. What nation has not commited atrocities at one time or another? What king was ever not a tyrant? So it goes.

This "need" you speak of, though. What is that other than a fear of what lurks beyond the light of the fire around which we huddle? What is it other than a fear of what happens when our elders die? What is it other than a hope that we can all eventually be reunited with our loved ones? Fear, fear again, and hope. All eminently human conditions. Nothing supernatural about them at all.

Very true. Well put.

And what's more, they're things which can be addressed and dealt with one at a time - without need for a divine recourse, or the promise of a grand reunion party in the celestial sphere.

How would you address and deal with the fear of death and are you sure that your solution would be satisfying to everyone? Some may need to cling to their cherished beliefs and in fact not be better off without them.

The need for something as abstruse as comfort in teh face of an unremitting life cycle doesn't in itself confer any credibility of any religion which attempts to explain it. And when the price is as high as I perceive it to be, then it appears that there is no place for religion in the human condition.

Indeed, but that is your conclusion. It may not work for everyone.