So which method of deriving consciousness are you fellas backing? Holonomic brain theory? One of the various electromagnetic field theories? Orchestrated Objective Reduction?
Not that I have anything against quantum formulations of the basis for consciousness, but I prefer to think that reality is complex enough to utilize multiple factors in achieving the same outcome, whilst remaining painfully simple once the right questions are asked (elegance). Of course a quantum formulation of consciousness would tend to explain why near-death experiences seem to enable people to see and know things while the brain is "turned off," so I am certainly backing an at least in part quantum explanation for consciousness.
I think we all have since realized that the only "constant" we have is change, but this begs the question of how? The Wheeler Dewitt equation says time doesn't even exist, and the most sensible idea I have come across of how that can be possible is if each "Now" is its own discrete reality separate from past and present (each are "simply" an arrangement of particles or data points).
Of course this begs the question of why each moment appears to be connected to the next; if you suppose that God/Unity is 1 and all other data points are necessarily less than 1 in value but never 0 and not less than 0, then if all data points are all derived via division or multiplication by 1 (copying) you can arrive at a diverse seemingly disparate cosmos where things are connected in space and time without actually being truly separate. All very nice and pat and all, but I'll hold off on assuming reality can be defined by an intellect as primitive as our own.
And as far as the original topic is concerned. Should we really assume that all truth values for each religion are equal? If the actions taken by the members of a given religion are indicative of the amount of truth value a given religion's ideology contains, then there is absolutely no way that all religions are equal. You don't see too many Buddhist holy wars or Buddhist suicide bombers.
I think ultimately the best thing we can do is try to determine what is the best method of ultimately achieving our goals and personal satisfaction. All else, let the chips fall where they may. The problem is that most people lack the necessary level of abstraction to be able to conceive of such vastness as a million people, let alone billions. This is strongly evidenced by the fact that so many educated individuals in power espouse belief systems about politics and economy which after having been tried and tested failed spectacularly and they have not updated their ideas as a result of this failure.
So the rational thing is to remember that "We know nothing," and act accordingly. We should test to see if our experiences will match our ideology. We should test to see if programs that cost millions or billions or even lives will even produce the results we think they will before implementing them at a national or international scale. But for all those things we should do as a rational scientific actor... well lets just say that few of us ever get around to even learning how to do that properly let alone implement it in our lives. I certainly can't claim to be very good at it yet.
MTF
