Finding The True Religion:
Beyond The Placebo Effect of Religion
by David Pensgard
Religion improves health. This much we know. But, which religion is the right one, and does it matter?
Religion, by giving us conviction about our purpose and our eternal destination, can help us to relax in the face of the big, unsettling questions. Sometimes referred to as "The Placebo Effect of Religion" this stress-relieving effect can allow our bodies to more easily enter the resting state (the anabolic state). Yet, we each realize that, if a religion is not objectively true, if the ideology is false, then it is truly a placebo! That is, it's not real medicine. You may feel safer, and more worthy, but you may also be wrong!
I would be completely negligent if I were to compile a health site like this one and not mention my own spiritual convictions. Why? Because nothing is more important to the TOTAL wellbeing of a person than to be correctly related to one's creator. In fact, even when health is poor, and life painful, religion can make life worthwhile. Not only is religion a significant issue, it is the most significant issue. It's not just important, it's a necessity. Regardless of health, longevity, and even happiness, if a person is not following the true religion or ideology, then they may (depending on which one is correct) find out that the consequences are much worse than poor physical health.
It should be obvious, then, that this aspect of our lives is potentially the most important. This is because the stakes range from moderate to maximal. If there is no God and there is no correct ideology, then the follower of a religion at least benefits from the placebo effect. Conversely, if there is a God and one correct path, then the stakes could be maximal.
So, the big question is, which religion, if any, is correct? And, this leads us to the hairy perennial epistemological problem, "how do you recognize the truth?" In Western society (Europe and the Americas), we've been trained to think in terms of proof. From this perspective, something is true if it can be proved, it is questionable if it is probable, and it is worthless if it is neither. This way of thinking probably began with Rene Descartes and is called Foundationalism. The idea is that we can prove the things we know beyond all doubt by showing that all truths are founded upon other truths like the stone blocks of a building. At the base, the truths are placed on a "rock solid" foundation of ideas that no one can possibly call false, like "I think, therefore I am." Of course, Descartes if famous for this exact declaration.
Unfortunately, this method has failed. And, even more unfortunately, our society continues to act as if it works. The problem has been that Foundationalism has led to Verificationism. This is the idea that you have to prove something absolutely or else it is worthless. By making this claim, many had hoped to rule out theology and metaphysics (the branch of philosophy, not the voodoo/mystical/new-age stuff) as true areas of knowledge. This assertion ran into several problems:
Getting Over Foundationalism
What's the alternative to Foundationalism? One option is to modify it: Modified Foundationalism. By merely removing the requirement for certainty, or proof, Foundationalism becomes much more useful and much less dangerous. What this amounts to is just trying to base your ideas on the firmest evidence and argument that you can. If you've done a good job, and many people agree with you, then you can be happy that you've arrived at a pretty good approximation of the truth... at least that's the claim.
Another alternative is Coherentism. This view leads us to think that there is no absolute truth and that our systems of belief are only capable of making sense internally. In this view, the only thing that matters is that your ideas are consistent with one another. The problem with this is that, the laws of logic are needed to analyze consistency. So, either these laws are external and absolute, or they are internal and so your system is circular. It should be obvious that this alternative is not helpful in finding the correct religion which, if it exists, must be an external absolute. And, if it does not exist, if there is no truth, then we have no hope of verifying that it doesn't exist without using circular argument. This is the basic idea behind Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
The last alternative, and my favorite, is to use probabilities and to take on an attitude of humility with regard to knowledge. Within this view, we think of truth as real, and we believe that we can approach it. Think of truth as a nearly-attainable goal, as something that we can get very close to. We start with an experience or a thought, and then we test it. We compare the results of this test with several other tests. We form guesses as to the reason or purpose behind events and ideas. And we arrive at a conclusion that is thought to be close to the truth. But, the process doesn't end there. We constantly work to refine the guesses so that they become better. In this way we approximate, or approach, the truth.
This may look a bit like coherentism, but it is different since it involves a presumption that truth is independent of and external to our system or ideology. This is similar to the way we should approach God. We must first presume that God exists and then work to understand Him.
The next essential ingredient is humility. We must not think that we are able to achieve absolute certainty on our own. That would be like lifting ourselves into the air by pulling at our own boot straps. Instead, we should presume that any success that we have is the result of an undeserved gift from God and not the result of our own efforts. We may work hard, and be disciplined and careful in our thinking, but this is not enough.
After making the correct presumptions, that God exists and that he rewards those who seek knowledge of Him in humility, then our efforts to discover the truth about the big questions in life may bear fruit.
Unfortunately, the truth hides from us. The answers to our questions hide behind interconnected and compounded mysteries. This is not a simple algebraic formula with a couple of variables. In real life there are myriad variables, far too many to deal with in a mathematically certain manner. The question is, then, how do we deal with problems with very large numbers of unknowns?
We must employ a Bayesian statistical analysis. This probably isn't what you were expecting! But, although it sounds hard, our brains are ideal Bayesian calculators! In fact, it appears that we were designed to handle this exact kind of problem!!
- Check out this article on how our brains appear to be perfect Bayesian calculating machines!
You may have wondered why your brain, the most complex computation device in the universe, has trouble multiplying three-digit numbers while your pocket calculator can multiply fifteen-digit numbers. The answer is that your brain is not wired for that type of analysis. Instead, it is wired to handle problems with huge numbers of variables. This is the Bayesian approach. Many times it is mistaken for instinct, or "gut feeling," but it is really a subconscious function (most of the time) that allows you to predict and act in real-life situations even when they are hopelessly complex.
For instance, you don't have to know the exact acceleration and vector of a ball, factoring in mass and wind resistance, in order to catch it. Your brain guesses at each of these variables and delivers to your conscious mind an approximate answer. In this case, the answer would take the following form: "The ball will arrive approximately in this location at about this time." So, Bayesian analysis is inherently loose. It deals with problems that could not possibly be solved precisely because the number of unknowns is too large. But, by guessing at each variable, and by applying past experience, the results can be surprisingly accurate.
Of course, it's not just about catching objects that are flying through the air. It is mainly about answering the big questions that we face in this life. Using the Bayesian approach, we completely abandon Foundationalism. Instead of looking to prove one idea at a time, we compare ideas and see which one is the most probable. This is a subtle, but quite profound difference. Instead of analyzing a religion for being correct, we compare it to other ideologies. Given all the arguments and facts that I have available, one should stand out as being most probable. Thus, we do not need absolute certainty to arrive at our conclusions. However, this method cannot deliver certainty (no method can).
The biggest problem with this approach is that bias plays a huge role. So, regardless of whether you're investigating biology or theology, the desires of the mind influence what theories the mind produces as a way to understand this manifold of experience. And, because theories build on one another, this allows for entire systems of thought that are based on wishful thinking. Overcoming this problem is the main point of this article.
Eradicating Bias (three steps)
Bias is the number one enemy of discovering the truth. Most of the time, we can see it in others but we are usually blind to our own bias. This is the first step.
Remember, that our brains are constantly using the Bayesian method of analysis, subconsciously, to make guesses about the truth. We might be guessing about the location of a ball that is flying towards us, or we might be guessing about the truth of a scientific theory, or a religious claim. Bias occurs when we influence these guesses in a direction that we prefer for unrelated reasons. Alternatively, we may avoid a guess that makes us feel bad. Thus, bias is a prejudice... a pre-judging of the outcome that affects our analysis. It is an unfair, or even unjust, favoring of certain conclusions regardless of the true probability. In the end, it blinds us to the true probability that a theory is correct.
Nietzsche, a philosopher from Germany (1844-1900), recognized that people are biased so severely, that they become, in a very real sense, insane. People construct mental pictures of the way the world works, but this mental picture isn't accurate. So, technically, people are psychotic.
While he was a critic of religion, and likely to be quite biased himself, many philosophers now recognize that he was right about this. People aren't surprised when they conclude that they just happen to be part of the number one race and country in the world, for example. They are not surprised to "learn" that their language makes the most sense and is the most useful. They aren't fearful of concluding incorrectly that their religion is the correct one. And, they aren't at all shocked to find that, in their own time, the experts have finally gotten everything figured out in the fields of science, history, and politics.
Obviously, that was a bit of sarcasm. It should very much shock you to find that you just happen to have the correct answers when the world is filled with people who disagree with you. This leads us to the second step in eliminating bias:
How valuable is the truth? If you had a magical machine that was guaranteed to answer all of your questions with absolutely true answers, would you benefit from using it? Considering that we make decisions based upon what we believe to be true, and that decisions can lead us into beneficial or harmful situations, it should be obvious that being correct can be extremely valuable. In the case of religion and ideology, finding your way to the correct one can be the biggest decision a person ever makes.
Why, then, do we so readily allow bias to influence our decisions? Here is the reason... it feels good to allow bias to have its way! It's like candy; it feels good to eat candy, but we know it will harm our health in the long run. We enjoy driving fast, but we know it increases the chance of an accident. We lie, cheat, and steal because they give us advantages in the short term even though we know it will probably come back to haunt us. Most significantly, however, we allow bias because we like to think highly of ourselves. This leads us to the third step in eliminating bias:
This step works as motivation in addition to being informative. Why should you seriously question your beliefs? Because you really could be wrong AND you really need to be as right as possible because your future depends upon your beliefs.
Blaise Pascal, an existential philosopher in the 17th Century, has presented a proposition that has troubled many people since he delivered it. Atheists certainly hate it and have spilled much ink attempting to disprove it. It's called "Pascal's Wager" and it goes something like this:
"If there is a God and you reject him, then you suffer greatly after death. Yet, if there is no God and you follow a religion that turns out to be false, you haven't lost anything terribly important. Therefore, it is wiser to be religious than not."
While this seems to be true at face value, there are two major problems with it. First, there are many religions and many are exclusive. That is, they require you to follow their rules without giving credence to any other religion. So, the problem isn't 50-50, the odds become much worse as the number of options multiplies. Second, most religions require true commitment, not merely an attempt to beat the odds.
Instead, let me propose that we use Pascal's Wager merely as a means of motivation to try really hard to find the truth. Once we have arrived at a reasonable conclusion and eliminated the biases that we've located in our thinking, we should then make a separate and distinct decision to commit whole-heartedly to what we think is the truth. Pascal's approach has no legitimate place in this last step because it reduces the worth of the commitment. Imagine, for example, that one was to get married because married people live longer than single people statistically. Would such a marriage vow be meaningful? Would the other person be flattered or angered to discover the motivation behind the "I do"? Likewise, a commitment to God is superficial if it is motivated in such a way. And, while selfishness is an essential ingredient in any decision, it comes in degrees and types. We ought to make our commitment based not just on what is right for us, but on what we believe to be right absolutely.
The State of the Apologetic Arms Race
Religions compete for followers. They present arguments and evidence that support their views. These arguments are easily obtainable at the library. Many religions/ideologies will even give you books and materials to read. Unfortunately, you probably don't have time to read all the available material. So, you must first weed out the obviously false options.
If you do this a few times, you will begin to see bias in other people's argumentation and in their appraisal of the evidence. Be careful, bias does not necessitate error! A person could believe in the correct ideology despite being unpleasant, uneducated, and heavily one-sided in his analysis.
A person can be very responsible in discovering the truth; he can do all the hard work in a proper manner and he can still be wrong. Conversely, a person can be stupid, mentally lazy, uneducated, but he can still happen to be correct (cf., the Gettier Problem). Don't judge a book by its cover. Don't discount an ideology because you despise its followers.
Learn to look past the people to the ideas themselves. This also helps in dealing with your own bias.
Don't think about who is right, think about what is right.
Ties that Bind
Chances are, if you make a change from one belief to another, someone will be mad at you. This can cause great stress. It can even lead to abuse. So, this can be very bad for your health and happiness. For many, this is too high a price. If you are such a person, realize that this amounts to a bias that will keep you from considering certain options. This bias is one of the hardest to fight because it is the hardest to see and the hardest to oppose. So, remember, incorrect beliefs, while making friends and family happy, can ultimately lead to pain and suffering for yourself and others. Look ahead and see the train wreck that incorrect ideas are leading you all toward.
Perhaps it would help to think of yourself as the origin of a new tradition. You don't want to lead your friends and family down a path that turns out to be wrong. Even worse, your children will have a much greater chance of following in your footsteps than any other. Your duty, therefore, is to the truth, not to human relationships, because the truth has the best chance of being successful in the long run.
A Head Start
Now that we've discussed so much methodology, why don't we do a bit of actual work?
Most of my own journey down this path is recorded in a little book that I wrote for young adults in college who are struggling with these issues. It's short, easy to read, and full of pictures... in fact, it is actually a graphic novel. You can get a paper copy of it at www.answersingenesis.org and their online store (search for my last name: Pensgard), or you can read it online for free at www.thebigmystery.com.
Here is the essence of that book: First we start by making the correct presumptions and by eliminating bias. Then we start with basic ideas that are probably true. Then, we work from the simple ideas to complex ideas. We realize that each step increases the chances of error. But, using the Bayesian approach, we can make some highly probable, though loose, conclusions.
For me, that path led to the conclusion that all things, including people, are contingent. That is, they are all dependent for their existence upon something else.
After this, I thought long and hard about what would be necessary to explain the existence of myself and the universe. I came up with a list of traits and studied it carefully. This list looked like a description of God. Realizing that I was not the first to reach this conclusion, I proceeded to look at categories of religions and ideologies. I was able to rule out whole categories, one at a time, by realizing that many of them made claims that directly contradicted the needs of the universe. For example, I would say something like this, "To explain the universe, the first cause needs to be X, but this category of religion denies X, therefore the category is not the correct type of religion or ideology."
In this manner, it was easy to rule out Atheism, Pantheism, and Polytheism. Thus, the options were reduced to the three existing monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I investigated each one and concluded that Christianity claims to be a continuation of Judaism, but that the Jews didn't take the right option with regard to Jesus (who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah). Islam makes a similar claim about Judaism but also claims that the Christian writings had been corrupted and were in need of correction... so it claims to be a correction of corrupt scriptures.
I noticed that these three were all related. They each claimed Abraham as part of their history. They also claimed the same prophets, even after Abraham. I noticed, further, that there was one question that could distinguish between all three religions. If I could answer that question, I'd know which of the three, if any, was the correct religion.
This question goes back to Abraham and the traditions and historical records that come with him. The issue is the fall of man and the need for salvation. The problem with the fall is that humanity is worthy of judgment due to sin, we are all born into it and we all participate in evil. This is the lesson of Abraham's tradition. It is also the reason why humanity needs a savior. Without one, we are destined to be judged by God. The Jews, descended from Abraham, record a promise from God of a savior, this man was called "Messiah," which means "anointed one."
So, the question is, who is the Messiah? Has he ever come? How will he do his work of saving us?
Of course, the Jews do not think that the Messiah has ever come, or hasn't come yet. Christians think that Jesus was the Messiah, that he has done his spiritual work already (saving those who believe in Him) and that He will return a second time to complete the work of salvation by eradicating unbelievers and setting up an earthly kingdom.
The Muslims take things back to Abraham. They claim that the scriptures have been corrupted by the Jews, that Abraham's other descendents, the Arabs, are the children of the promises of God, not the Jews. They reject Christianity also because they do not believe that a Messiah is coming, per se. However, they do believe in a future political figure who will make Islam the world's only religion by means of a great war.
So, the one question that can decide between all these religions seems to be, "Who and what was Jesus?" Modern-day Judaism claims that he was a lunatic or a liar. Christians claim that He was the embodiment of God (a requirement of the function of paying for our sins). Islam claims that he was a prophet and that his message was corrupted. Clearly, all three cannot be correct. In fact, no two can be correct. Only one of the three can be correct.
To resolve this question, I first turn to the dependability of the reports about Jesus. I find that there is much disagreement, but that recent scholarship, based on a minimal set of historical facts that all scholars agree upon, locates the origin of the basic Christian message within months of the crucifixion of Jesus. Thus, I can conclude that the message didn't evolve with time as the church developed. (For details on this step, please read one of the books written by Dr. Gary Habermas, the leading scholar in the world with regard to the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. You may also visit his website: www.garyhabermas.com.)
Second, I notice that, multiple sources from multiple perspectives (believers and non-believers) mentioned the existence of Jesus, the death of Jesus by public execution, the burial of Jesus in a specific tomb, and the fact that the tomb was later found to be empty despite being under Roman guard. Additionally, the followers of Jesus, over 500 of them, reported seeing him alive after his death and burial. Despite many efforts, no theory has been able to explain the specific historical facts without reference to supernatural miracles. All other explanations have failed to withstand criticism.
Even during Jesus' life, his enemies admit to seeing him perform supernatural miracles, even while explaining them away as being the result of dark, evil powers. This is known as "enemy attestation" and is considered to be among the strongest type of historical evidence available. This leaves us with a picture of a man whose message was preserved within months of his death, who performed miracles while alive. More importantly, his followers were transformed after believing that they saw him alive after he was publicly and most certainly killed (stabbed in the heart with a spear... that's what "blood and water" entails). They believed it so strongly that most of them endured painful deaths without recanting. None of them got rich. Most of them were going against friends and family. They had absolutely no selfish reason to lie, yet they shouted them from the roof tops for all to hear.
So, who and what was Jesus? If we compare the probabilities (The Bayesian Approach) we see that he is likely not to be a madman because many people found his teachings to be credible; they believed his claims and followed his lead. And, despite much abuse, the numbers of followers of his teachings exploded to encompass much of the world. Since that time, many of the greatest philosophers and theologians the world has ever seen worked within a Christian framework. Thus, insanity is not a very probable option.
What about being a liar? Many of his claims cannot be directly verified because they are about non-empirical things. While very important, like the afterlife, such issues can only be analyzed by rational investigation and by the implications of miracles. So, we ask if the teachings of Jesus make sense logically. Do the hard teachings lead to necessary contradiction, paradox, or mystery? Indeed, some of Jesus' teachings are hard to understand, but very few scholars have concluded that any of them lead to necessary contradictions. Thus, it is most probable that his teachings are live options. In other words, no one has proven them false. So, to be called a liar, you'd first have to be proven to make false claims. Since this hasn't been established in Jesus, we must conclude that he could be telling the truth. And so, we are at a 50-50 split.
Is there any other factor that could lead us to believe his claims were true despite our inability to verify all of them? He had to have the ability to know something about what he was claiming. If he claims special knowledge, we have to be able to believe he had access to that knowledge. How could he prove he had special access to great truths? His miracles, which appear to be more probably real than fake due to enemy attestation, establish that he had access to special powers and/or information. They act as validators to his capacity to make larger claims than the average man can make. For example, imagine someone claimed to know that there would be no mail delivery service tomorrow. If that's all you knew, you'd say there was a 50-50 chance of his being correct. But, if the person were able to prove that he was a postman, then the likelihood of his being correct would go up because he would be in a position to know.
With Jesus we have a similar situation. He claimed to know God personally, indeed, to be the very expression of God's word in the form of a man. In fact, he claimed to be God in the flesh. While this has been very difficult to understand, one could at least expect that such a person would be able to know things no one else could know. But, while this is true, it cannot be verified or tested.
Instead, we have a second inference to make. Such a person would be powerful! Since God is omnipotent, anyone claiming to be God would have access to omnipotent power. He would be able to do things no other man can do. So, the miracles of Jesus act to lend some credence to his statements. Thus, if certain types of actions can only be made by someone with God-like power, and if Jesus can perform those actions, then it is likely that he had access to God-like knowledge. So, the probability that he was a liar is reduced below 50-50. We can thus conclude that it is probable that he was not a liar.
We've already shown that his message was not distorted by his followers because it was in place almost immediately after he died. In addition, the followers had no reason to be biased in favor of it. It didn't make them feel good or make them wealthy. Instead, it did the opposite. Following Jesus cost them everything including their lives. This acts as a form of vindication for their writings because they were working against the forces of bias that usually control people. Historically, this is very powerful evidence in favor of authenticity. Imagine what kind of experience would cause people to sacrifice so much and behave so boldly? Perhaps their claims to have seen God in the flesh and believing in the message of an afterlife would do it?
In any case, the other religions (Judaism and Islam) make claims about Jesus that don't hold up to scrutiny. He is the central figure in Christianity and it appears most probable that his claims were correct. If you can accept that this is true, then you are left with a decision about whether to commit or to reject these teachings and this man. Religion isn't like ice cream. It matters which one you choose.
Christianity is an exclusive religion. Jesus himself said that he was the only way to God and the only path to eternal life. He verified the tradition and history of Abraham indicating that we are fallen, evil, and destined for judgment. He taught that eternal punishment is the result of this judgment.
To be a "Christian," a follower of "Christ" by definition, you must accept what He taught. No true Christian believes things that Jesus said were not true. No true Christian denies what Jesus said was true. And a good follower fulfills his obligation to learn exactly what Jesus taught so that these things may be believed and obeyed and trusted.
There is no half way. Ironically, accepting Christianity comes with a great deal of self-sacrifice. This is one way to know that your commitment is genuine. Just like the first followers of Jesus who died because of their commitment, you too will have to suffer if you choose to commit. Jesus promised his followers, all of them, that they would endure hardship on his account. This high price ensures that any commitment is serious. By implication, a Christian who is not suffering for the sake of Christ, may not be taking the right stands. He might not be joined to a true church. Jesus taught that He and his teachings offend the world and foment anger and retribution. This is where the suffering comes from (it is not supposed to be self-inflicted, by the way).
So... what are you going to do?
In the end, it would be quite ironic if you followed all of the advice on this health & nutrition website, living to be 190 years of age... but died only to discover that you had ignored the most important piece of information this site contains. Regardless of who you are, I wish you well and hope that you put all of this information to use for the benefit of your body and soul!