I find your analysis to be thoughtful, accurate and compelling.
Wow, that is high praise for an internet form comment! Thanks!
You mention Carol uses too blunt an instrument to dissect and discard religion, and suggest value exists it. I am interested to hear more of your thoughts on this matter.
I am an atheist. I believe religion offers communal and society benefits, but also produces much harm. Presently, I cannot identify any benefit of religion that can be found elsewhere which justifies tolerating the harm.
Nevertheless, I am open to challenging my view, and would like to hear your input.
I'm sorry that it took me so long to reply to this. It deserved some thought.
Carol does a great job of discarding religion as a scientific theory, but that is too easy because it is not a scientific theory. Craig is arguing that one's belief in God should be strengthened because God's existence would explain the existence of the universe. (Unlike Craig and Carol, even if the universe had no beginning instant and is eternal, I might still want an explanation for why there is a universe rather than nothing.) I have some sympathy with the argument that explanatory power is a reasonable cause for belief. I often believe things for which I do not have scientific proof because of their explanatory power. For example, I believe that my wife genuinely loves me, meaning that she experiences loving feelings similar to the feelings that I have for her. To me this seems like a better explanation for her behavior than that she is engaged in a years-long deception or that she is a
philosophical zombie. I can't have direct access to her (or anyone else's) conscious experiences, so I can never prove scientifically that she experiences loving feelings. I accept "on faith" that she does feel love for me. I also believe that I am not stuck in computer simulation of reality, that I am not a
Boltzmann brain, that people should not hurt each other, and that God exists. All of these are extremely strong beliefs that I have without scientific evidence.
In my opinion, the idea that one should only believe things that are supported by science is absurd. As far as I can tell all people have non-scientific beliefs. They can give meaning to life, organize other beliefs, provide explanations, and serve other beneficial roles. Of course, one must strive for consistency of one's beliefs. For me the reliability of science is a very strong belief, and I allow no conflict between my religious beliefs and science. God gave us brains capable of rational thought, and God expects us to use them. My God is not squeezing little miracles into the gaps between known science. I think creationists for example are confused about both God and science.
I believe in God because it gives me a feeling of purpose and meaning, it helps me to act ethically, it contributes to community, I like its explanatory power (not only for the existence of the universe but also for other things), and it is my habit, to give some examples. I'm confident that my religion brings me more benefit than harm. Also, I have no evidence that God does not exist.
Does religion cause more global benefit than harm? I have no idea! I wish we had a good randomized, controlled trial for that! I would comment that I think that a large fraction of religious people, of all religions, are and have been doing it wrong.
So, QED, I hope that answers your curiosity. At least I enjoyed thinking and writing about it.
Sorry, moderators, for straying off-topic.