A little, a very small part of a big picture. The man's religious belief, the way it is for him, affects his behavior. Since religion overwhelmingly appears to be man-made, the additive behavior's of all the apparent practicioners is the representation that there is.
However, if it were known that religion is of divine origin, one could always figure that the practicioner was straying from what the religion actually called for.
Yes, I agree, this is of key importance.
As long as we don't know what exactly it is that God wants or doesn't want from us, we're stuck in speculation and have to accept numerous options as possible.
But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that religion is man-made. That wouldn't automatically mean that the things it is about (notably, God), are man-made too; they may be, or not.
I often note how some theists are promoting what to me seems like a merely mundane image of religiousness. But perhaps they have a good point after all. Namely, my - and some other people's - quest for the "right religion" is based on what is essentially bad faith. And this quest is considered to be of central importance. But one can be concerned, to the point of paralyzing anxiety, over "which religion is the right one" only if one already firmly holds the belief that if one doesn't get it right in this one lifetime, one will be doomed forever.
People who don't have this bad faith (typically, this is people who were not raised in a culture strongly influenced by the Abrahamic religions) seem to have a categorically different approach to religion, one that I haven't quite figured out yet. But generally, they do seem to come from the position of good faith - that whatever they do that they consider worship (or something related) of God is a step in the right direction. In comparison to the tyranny of "get it right in this one lifetime or be doomed forever," such good-faithed effort indeed seems mundane and man-made - and in fact, in many ways, it is precisely that.
So keeping in mind this distinction between bad faith and good faith and their respective consequences, can put the whole debate on religion in a different perspective.
I don't think it is either, but I think it should be, however.
Why?
Wouldn't this make religious adherents unnecessarily vulnerable to anyone who wanted to take advantage of them in any way?
I'm not sure I see why you say that. One person's hasty thought might be another's well-figured one.
Well, sure.
When you look at some of the critics of religion, you see that as soon as there is some violent act, and the perpetrator is a member of a religious organization or has quoted a religious text, those critics conclude, with absolute certainty, that this means the behavior was religiously motivated and is representative of religion. And those critics insist in their conclusion even as other people from nominally the same religion as the perpetrator, publicly condemn their violent act and declare it contrary to their religious principles.
I don't understand people's arguing. Somehow if someone says that religious faith boosts an individual's motivation to do things they might not do without it, that somehow says that there aren't other factors involved too, when all the person is saying that religious faith is a motivating factor.
People tend to look for the culprit, and they tend to think that there is only one culprit.
Acknowledging the complexity of a situation isn't particularly popular.
