"I don't know how to calculate the probability of a nation that is not a superpower (or even a superpower) to remain a recognizable, cohesive unit for 3,000 years, but I imagine it's pretty small, since only one of each has done so. I also don't know how to calculate the probability of a nation remaining recognizable and cohesive despite hundreds of years of dominating countries attempting to eradicate them. To me, that makes less sense than a God who does things I don't understand."
IceNogle makes the point I was going to make, but I thought I could add to it with some terminology.
You are looking back from now, but that's called cheating. That's like looking at a field with an arrow in the ground far from the starting point, and it's hit a perfect bulls-eye in a target drawn in the grass. But if the arrow is shot first and the target drawn around the arrow, it's no longer impressive.
A world without a God would look identical to the one we have now, and that's because God does not manifest himself in any obvious fashion. This is different from a world where, say, Batman actually exists, because in that world, there'd be one difference, as I see it...we wouldn't see Batman comic books or action figures the way we have them now. Now, these comics and toys are seen by kids as representing something that they may not understand to not exist, but all adults know that they are just toys and stories, and that Batman doesn't actually exist.
I don't know that that's clear at all. There is no absolute morality, and for some, they either disagree with this (and see religion as absolute morality) or they agree, but they see their religion as a good guide to morality.
So I disagree with you...truth ought to be paramount, not morality.
It seems to me a strawman only from the religious perspective.
Those in the faith want to apply constraints sometimes, but not other times, and the way these constraints are selected seems quite arbitrary to a non-believer. So why make an ark to save its inhabitants from a flood -- why not just have all those who perish die by miracle? If the Jews are to annihilate the tribe of Amalek, isn't it more efficient and easier to just have Amalek die by divine decree...in other words, drop dead?
Rather, the concept of a religion sets up a relationship between God and people. And just like you ask you spouse or child (or sister, etc.) to do something for you when you could have just done it yourself, because you want to use it as a means of establishing and maintaining a relationship, so too, religion was crafted to establish and maintain a relationship between man and God. So even if one doesn't believe in God, that person can understand why the people who do believe in any given religion make up a God that requires interaction and dedication and participation of the people, rather than just have everything miraculously happen.
Which is why, once again, I sense that the truth of religion is a better way to argue than the morality angle.