@reasoning logic,
As a general point which may or may not have raised before on this thread, I would point out that the
only criteria for the "correctness" or otherwise of religions are psychological and social ones.
The word "reality" is irrelevant since it cannot be objectively defined.
So on the basis of psychological and sociological criteria, I re-iterate my point that religion is predominantly a cognitive counterpart to our primate inheritance of tribalism. It functions psychologically as a palliative and a
raison d'etre to cognate animals who are saddled with an idea of "their future", and at the sociological level it helps regulates societal behavior, especially modifying natural animal tendencies which are problematic to animals with a concept of "consequences".
Clearly the plethora of religious forms indicates the arbitrary nature of their narrative detail, and the universality of occurrence indicates their psychological and sociological functionality. However, it is historically obvious that they embody sociologically pernicious elements which exacerbate inter-tribal conflict and over-ride any psychological benefits they may have at the individual level.
In that sense they are "wrong" on balance. However, general intelligence levels coupled with sociological conditioning embodied in the linguistic aspects of child rearing conspire to perpetuate religions to the extent that Dawkins' description of them as "cognitive virus's" makes some sense.
