That sounds about right. The abstract question of the "theistic God" is philosophical but impractical, and the more empirical details we consider about what a particular religion entails, the more real the decision becomes about whether to treat the religion as a reliable source of information. We all make snap decisions based on our first impression of an individual. Is he or she trustworthy? We pick up on many subtle cues. In fact, we're expert mind-readers in that sense. We have that social instinct.

Organizations and institutions are harder to evaluate because they, too, are abstract. But their human representatives are another matter. Do we trust or respect the priests or the televangelists or the average worshippers? Philosophical arguments may have very little to do with that initial, gut-level assessment.

And of course, most believers are raised to adopt their religion, so they bypass this gut-level decision. They learn to trust in or at least to respect their religion before they're old enough to think for themselves.