Choosing Religious Assumptions

In my last post, I talked a little about assumptions that we have to make to arrive at religious beliefs based on spiritual feelings (I recommend that you read it before reading this one).  In this post, I will talk a little more about that.

As an example of how we make assumptions to arrive at religious belief, consider Mormonism.  In Mormonism, it is believed that God is the source of all truth, and that truth is communicated through the Holy Ghost.  By studying and praying, an individual can learn the truth about why we are here, what roles our families play, what happens after this life, who Jesus Christ was, what He did for us, etc.

The critical assumptions in this case are that:

1. God exists
2. God is interested in us
3. God is capable of teaching us
4. God teaches us through the Holy Ghost
5. The Holy Ghost communicates by giving us feelings of peace and comfort

These are "critical" assumptions because, if you don't make them, you can't find truth using the method prescribed by Mormonism (It is worth noting that the Mormon view of God's role in leading us to truth is not at all unique among Christian sects).

Now, is there anything special about the five assumptions that I listed?  Is there any specific, logical reason to accept these assumptions instead of another set?  For example, suppose that instead I start with a slightly modified set of assumptions:

1. God exists
2. God is interested in us
3. God is unwilling or unable to communicate with us directly
4. God designed us so that we feel good when we pursue constructive beliefs, even if they are false

This second set of assumptions has as much logical backing as the first, and it will lead to an entirely different belief system from that taught by Christian sects.  We could make hundreds of sets of assumptions on which to build religious beliefs, sets which have as much rational footing as any other.  That's why I mentioned in a previous post that beliefs can be seen as arbitrary - there really isn't anything to recommend one set of assumptions over another other than what happens to feel the best or make the most sense.

Does this mean that we shouldn't believe in God?  Not really.  After all, refusing to believe in God simply creates a different set of assumptions - a set in which God does not exist.  I think that the lesson to take from this is that we should be aware that the methods we use to arrive at religious belief aren't exactly well-founded.  We should allow for the possibility that we could be wrong, that there might be other systems of belief that are at least as valid as our own.  We should be unwilling to do things in the name of God or religion that conscience would generally decry as immoral.

There are also implications in terms of how we view people who have "fallen away" from faith.  All other things being equal (ie. no substantial loss of healthy moral standards), how can anyone say that an individual is worse-off because she decided to build a world-view using a different set of arbitrary assumptions?