Too Many Religions

Everybody can admit that the world has many differing belief systems, not to mention the divisions within belief systems (those divisions can be greater in ferocity than divisions between separate belief systems, in fact!). Confronted with all this diversity, how can one conclude that any one belief system is true? If one belief system was really (objectively) true, wouldn't everyone just claim that one instead of disagreeing all the time? Mathematically speaking, if there's an equal chance of any one member of the mass being correct, the probability is quite low that someone happens to bet on the right one! Since the "God exists" camp can't get their act together, doesn't it make more sense to forget 'em and join the "God, who's that?" camp?

Or so the "Too Many Religions" argument goes. Fortunately, the argument is riddled with holes, in the form of flawed assumptions:

• Flaw 1: disagreement means that none of the disagreeing parties can be right. Clearly, this flawed assumption isn't true in the general case, because someone can certainly be both wrong and in disagreement with someone else (who is right). I think the intent of this flaw is to assert that disagreement about an issue means it is subjective, and a subjective issue is a matter of taste or preference, not truth. Since people can disagree about objective issues as well as subjective issues (most of the time perception is a mix of objective and subjective), disagreement is not sufficient evidence of subjectivity.
  
• Flaw 2: atheism & agnosticism are in a different class from other belief systems. If an atheist believes there is no such thing as the supernatural, that is a definite belief based on supposed (anti-supernatural) evidence. If an agnostic believes that no evidence applies to the existence of the supernatural, that is a definite belief based on a supposed lack of ANY evidence for either side. The meta-belief of "no belief without positive evidence conforming to standards XYZ is truly true" is itself a belief! Compare the agnostic and the pro-supernatural believer to two people in a pitch-black room. The agnostic corresponds to the person who only trusts visual evidence, and the supernatural-supporter corresponds to the person who trusts both visual and tactile evidence. The sight-only person, like the agnostic, experiences no evidence acceptable to him, and uses that lack to believe that he can know nothing about the room's contents. The visual-tactile person, like the supernatural-supporter, also experiences no visual evidence but does experience tactile evidence acceptable to him, and uses that evidence to form beliefs about the room's contents. Each person in the pitch-black room has belief systems about the room's contents. There is nothing special about the belief system of one person compared to the belief system of the other. To put it bluntly, people who seek atheism or agnosticism to "escape" the "messiness" of supernatural belief systems are merely switching to another belief system!
  
• Flaw 3: all of the belief systems that have supernatural elements have an equal chance of being correct. This flaw is only convincing to people who have already decided that all belief systems with supernatural elements are false or without evidence. Those who have actually studied any of the supernatural belief systems know that some are more plausible than others. Not to be disrespectful, but in some sense belief systems can be evaluated like competing scientific theories. Which belief system has the least internal contradictions? Which belief system explains the most? Which belief system best matches someone's experience? Which belief system is the most fitting answer to the "human condition"? Which belief system has less "excess baggage" tenets, which seem to serve no purpose besides making the big picture more complicated?
  
• Flaw 4: one true belief system would result in everyone following it. This flaw is self-defeating, strictly speaking. Each person who believes that his own beliefs are true, and not elaborate fantasies, can't help acknowledging that others disagree with him or her, which means the statement "everyone would follow the true belief system" has to be false. The very diversity of belief systems leads to either flaw 4 being true or the statement "my belief system is true" being true. I think the intent of this flaw is to argue by contrapositive: if "God exists" implies "everyone believes the same thing about God", then the reality of everyone not believing the same thing about God implies that God must not exist. This is actually laughable, the idea that God's existence would somehow trump the ability of people to choose their beliefs. Have you met someone stubborn, someone who will not "see reason" or not "see what's right in front of his face"? I have too. Christianity not only has the doctrine that God exists (a central piece, indeed!), but the doctrine that Fallen Man tends to disregard God's existence. Rebellion is not only possible, but expected.
  
• Flaw 5: people follow particular belief systems (just) because of upbringing. The simple retort is that converts happen. On an emotional level, mature believers who were taught their belief system as children would rightly find it insulting to be accused of being mindless automatons or pawns. "You don't share my belief system, therefore you're a mere product of your upbringing" is presumptuous. It's also not factual, considering that some people freely leave their childhood belief systems after reaching an independent age. Some of them take it a step further by veering off to the opposite extreme, in the attempt to prove their freedom through rebellion. Yes, in any specific example there are probably identifiable factors at work that "conspire" to convert someone to a new belief system or confirm him or her in the current one, but the decision still lies with the individual, not with the individual's circumstances.

Ultimately, whenever there's a right answer, a multitude of wrong answers are possible. The wrong answers can be inventive and creative ("who was the second US president?" "Mayor McCheese!"). The right answer stands apart from the pack.