Religion and luck

[LA_Price]

This is in response to those who think that because alot of people believe in particular religion, it is any kind of evidence for or against that religion being true.

My contention is that the majority people's religions, and the reason that they believe in whatever particular religion they do, is largely based on luck and randomness. Not to say that there was not more skill or merit to some religions over others, or that people do not possess free will, because they do occasionally change, discover, or renounce religions(albeit rarely). Rather that the spread of religions largely accompanied the conquest of the nations in which they first became affiliated, and their spread even due to missionary work was based largely on luckily having the resources that they could afford to send missionaries around the globe, rather than that they were spread solely do to the merits of their beliefs.

Also a rapid rise in popularity often stems from a few critical conversions. For example Constantine(christianity), The sultans of the Ottomon Empire(Islam), mauryan emperor Asoka the Great(buddhism) all significantly helped to popularize their particular religions through conquest. Once these religions reached a certain point of popularity and power, it was much easier for them to spread. This is much like the reason why VHS won out vs Betamax. Once it reached a certain point of popularity everyone started releasing their videos on it, even though it was a technically inferior product. Religions and their spread exist in a non-bell curve shaped world and peoples choice of religion operates on incomplete information. It is easy for the masses to be wrong.

Those who have read "Guns, Germs, and Steel", by Jared Diamond, will understand the argument that much of the reasons why civilizations conquer others such as why Europeans conquered America rather than Native Americans conquering Europe, was largely due to a few lucky breaks initially in livestock, crops, and technical breakthroughs(in weapons, disease resistance, and production) which allowed them to conquer. It had little if anything to do with their religous affiliation, other than
maybe some organizational or nationalistic sentiments that may have helped in taking large numbers to war.

Given these contentions and the number of religions that have existed throughout history in addition to all the religions that could still be invented or "discovered", the the probability of the peticular religion you believe in being true can not be based on the number of people who believe in it. Because we are fooled by survivorship bias, and the reasons they spread was only partly based on their merits. Basically any random religion that gained a critical converstion of a country that luckily possessed the resources to advance its spread. Thinking that any of them are more right than others because of popularity is a narrative fallacy.

That being said if there is a "right religion", atheism and agnosticism would be included, and the probability of them randomly being right is in the same boat, but this is not an argument for or against either of those, only an argument against those who say that the wisdom of the crowd should be given any credence as evidence for or against any religion.