One more thought… I don’t know if this helps, but this is how I always explain faith to people who ask…
“Three people go for a walk up a mountain. At the top, they stop, and look at the view. They then get to talking… about how unlikely it was that they would all meet, and all be friends, and all go on this walk… about how unlikely it is that they were even born at all… about how unlikely it is that, out of the billions of sperm, the one which made them them found the egg and became a zygote. They think about how unlikely it was that all of their ancestors married all of their other ancestors and had children to make them. They think about how unlikely it was that the human race evolved at all, and that we don’t live on a planet full of dinosaurs, or something. They think about how unlikely it is that we actually have a planet that can sustain life like Earth… heck, scratch that… how unlikely it is that we actually have a universe at all!
Then they are all quiet for a bit, and think.
Number 1 speaks first.
Number 1: I know all about the processes… genetic, biological, and evolutionary… which exist in this world. But none of that explains why I, me, myself, is stood here right now, at this minute, looking at this view. That very fact… the very fact of my existance as I understand it… seems so minutely and miraculouosly unlikely that I can’t help believing that there must be something… some higher power… some force… which has allowed me to get lucky.
Having outed themselves as a theist, 1 is silent. Then 2 speaks.
Number 2: Although it seems highly statistically unlikely that I, as this person I know myself to be, am sat here, now, then every probability outcome is realised at some stage. It has to be. That’s just how probability works. I mean, there could be some sort of higher power, but I don’t think so. I think that probability and chance alone are enough to explain this set of unlikely coincidences.
Number 2 is the atheist. Finally, 3 (the agnostic) speaks.
Number 3: I have listened to both of your arguments and understand the truths behind both of them. I conclude that I have insufficient data to decide one way or the other. We live in a world in which we tend to trust statistics. It is true that our existence as we know it is almost unbelievably unlikely, statistically, to exist. Equally, anything is possible in an infinite universe. This includes both a higher power, and an enormous statistical anomaly. Until I see evidence either way, I cannot decide.”
Working from logic alone, the most logical position is that of the agnostic, 3. Both 1 and 2 have worked, on some level, from instinct/intuition/spirituality/belief/whatever. I know I, as a number 1, certainly have. But I do not think that 1 is more or less logical than 2 here. Basically, I would argue that belief in a higher power is not logical, but it is not illogical, either.
Secondly, many religious figures were real people… Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha. They were all born, and they ate and drank, and they pood and peed, just like anyone else. Whether or not you believe that they were divine is another matter. But they did exist as real people. So it isn’t really like believing in the Easter Bunny. The Easter Bunny does not appear on ancient censuses, or books of law and government, and he doesn’t have scrolls and letters where his politics are discussed, in detail, by his contemporaries. These aren’t imaginary people.