How about the Unitarian version? There is probability p that life is pretty much as it appears on the surface, there is no grand meaning, no survival after death, nothing we can ever experience beyond our day-to-day feelings. In that case we can maximize utility, not necessarily by wanton immorality and hedonism, but just putting our personal satisfaction first and killing ourselves painlessly when utility becomes negative. Call the utility from that strategy UNN if the assumptions are correct and UNG if the assumptions are not correct.There is probability 1-p that there is more to the universe than that. So we spend time reading and thinking about it. We obey consensus moral rules because, "hey, you never know." We participate in rituals and nourish our spiritual side. Of course, this behavior may not save us from Hell if it turns out that God is, say, Calvinist or Moslem, and we haven't guessed right (but even then, there might be a cooler section of Hell for people who lived good lives but neglected the specifics required for salvation). Still, if there is an afterlife, we might have a better shot at enjoying it with this strategy. Even if there is no afterlife, there may be deep spiritual satisfaction that leads to an overall happier life than maximizing utility does. Or not. But there's no guarantee that maximizing utility will lead to happiness either. So call the expected utility from this behavior UGG if the assumptions are correct and UGN if the assumptions are incorrect.So we can choose between p*UNN+(1-p)*UNG or p*UGN+(1-p)*UGG. The absolute values of the U_G states are much higher for most people than the U_N states, so much so that p doesn't really matter. The stakes are so much higher with religion (cosmic meaning to actions, eternal pleaure or pain, deep spiritual payoffs) that if UGG > UNG, religion is likely to be the rational choice, that is the choice of the utility maximizer. If UGN > UNN, as I think James and MobPsycho claim, then the solution is easy.

You also need to include the adjective "Roman" in order to prevent "Catholic" merely meaning "universalTo further elucidate, there are some 24 [twenty-four] different rites which are considered Catholic, and in communion with Rome of which the Roman rite is most certainly one. Quite correct. The entire 24 escape even my pedantic memory, but there are Syriac, Ukranian,etc that are in their own vernacular.

The Church of England (strictly speaking not a protestant church) also retained both Creeds. Did you ever read John Henry Cardinal Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua? A fascinating account. Newman tried to pursue the Anglican Church of England as the "third way" and began by intensively reading the early Greek Church Fathers [in the original vernacular Greek texts of course]; and instead read/wrote himself into Rome. The Apologia [usually studied only in Graduate English courses in Victorian literature] is a masterwork as he replies to a slanderous article by Charles Kingsley in the late 1800's that his conversion was insincere and he was about to leave the Catholic Church and come back to the Church of England.Newman was a master orator and rhetoritician astounding even the Vatican with his command of Classical Latin [as opposed to the simpler Ecclesiastical Latin] and his ability to summarize in a paragraph of Latin what would take others 2 pages.His conversion to Rome rocked England and I believe they serialized the story over 10 days in a London Daily.England, due to its turbulent history after Thomas More, have produced some outstanding Catholic martyrs, writers and intellectuals due to the precarious circumstances under which they had to practice their faith.My top picks are [in no particular order]:1) John Henry Cardinal Newman2) GK Chesterton3) Edmund Campion [Waugh's book Campion's Brag is outstanding]4) Evelyn WaughNote: James will likely have more picks -- I left out for example Fr Frederick Copleston, SJ for his 9 Volume History of Philosophy and battling Russell and Ayer in open debate on BBC Radio.

It is a bit difficult to use quant analysis to determine the rationality of religion, given that one of the key factors is the net utility of being a Christian (benefits vs costs) and of non-belief. Now of the posts mentioned has actually mentioned the factor of whether you actually, deep down, believe. If you truly believe, you would probably find that the benefits of practicing outweigh the costs. If you truly believe, you would probably find that the unhapiness/disutility you get from not practicing is considerable. Belief isn't something that you can just get because the benefits outweigh the costs. So therefore, from a quant perspective, if you believe in God, it is rational to practice Christianity (or whatever religion you believe in). If you don't believe in any God, it is probably rational to act as an atheist (as the hassles of going to church when you don't really care are greater than your perceived benefit).

I think gjlipman has returned the thread to its starting point.If religion is something that must be deeply felt, then it transcends rationality. You either are religious or your aren't.If religion is a bet with the universe, we can start modeling it. The fact that the parameters are uncertain and the modeling difficult will not discourage anyone on this forum. Compared to some exotic options referencing non-traded underlyings, how hard can religion be?To some, if it's rational it's not religious. If you profess belief in order to win a cosmic lottery, it's not faith. If you act well to avoid punishment, it's not morality.But to others, including Pascal (and I would add Aquinas and several other major theorists), think religion can be rational.

QuoteDouglas Adams, <i>The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the GalaxyHe hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.