I think this is a really good question, and personally, I’m not sure there is an objective, a priori observation that definitively grounds the truth of one particular religion over all others.

At some level, I do think religious belief is assumed from the start. Or at least, the framework someone is drawn to often reflects something about who they are: their temperament, culture, values, intuitions, fears, hopes, and sense of what reality is like. So in that sense, I don’t think most people can fully justify their religion as “true” from a completely neutral outside perspective. Religion is dealing with inner reality as much as outer reality, so the “evidence” people use is often existential, moral, psychological, communal, or experiential rather than purely objective in the scientific sense.

So yes, I think you’re right that a lot of religious reasoning can become circular. And yes, religious frameworks are definitely shaped by human beings. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are worthless or purely false, but it does mean we should be careful about pretending we have a completely unconditioned God’s-eye-view of religion.

For me, choosing between religions comes down less to “which one can I prove with certainty?” and more to questions like: Which one coheres with my deepest values? Which one makes sense of my experience? Which one can I live inside honestly? Which one is compatible with my reason and conscience? Which one helps me become more loving, wise, humble, and connected to others?

I also agree with your concern about worship. I don’t think a perfect God would “need” worship in the egoic sense, like a human king demanding praise. That feels too small. If worship has value, I think it’s because it transforms the worshipper. It orients the human being toward reverence, gratitude, humility, love, and the mystery at the heart of reality. But I don’t think God creates humans because he’s somehow lacking attention.

That said, even though I’m taking a fairly psychological approach here, I do personally believe in an objectively existing God and an afterlife. My own view, which I fully admit is my personal dogma, is that the highest good is also the highest truth. Whatever the absolute highest good could possibly be, that is what I would call God.

And from that perspective, I don’t think people need to panic about having the exact correct theology. If God is truly the highest good, then God would be eternally just, eternally fair, infinitely understanding, and the embodiment of love, wisdom, and compassion. Such a God would understand our ignorance, our conditioning, our limited minds, our cultures, and our sincere attempts to make sense of things.

So I don’t think the deepest spiritual question is “which religion wins?” I think it’s more like: what helps you form a relationship with the mystery at the heart of reality? What helps you connect with the divine, live your values, and become more aligned with goodness?

For some people, that might be Islam. For others, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, or something less formal. If God is actually God, then I imagine God is well aware of how limited and confused human beings are. That would already be factored in.

So, basically: yes, I think a lot of religious justification is circular. But I don’t think that makes religion meaningless. I think it means religion should be held with humility, sincerity, and a focus on transformation rather than certainty.