Beyond The Placebo Effect of Religion
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 still be wrong!
I think 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 worth living. Not only is religion very significant, it dominates. It's not just important, it's a necessity. Of course, the opposite is also true, 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 it would have been better if they never were born.
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 would be as high as they could possibly be.
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. 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." In fact, Descartes if famous for this 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 lead to Verificationism. This is the idea that a 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 claims that there is no 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 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. For those of you know the know, this is just a corollary of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.
The last alternative, and my favorite, is to use Probabilities. Here, we think of truth as real, and believe we can approach it. Think of truth as an attainable goal, as something that we can either get to or 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.
To do this, we must employ a Bayesian statistical analysis. That sounds hard, but fortunately, our brains are ideal Bayesian calculators! 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 the 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 loose. It deals with problems that could not possibly be solved precisely because the number of unknowns is very large. But, by guessing at each variable, and by applying past experience, the results can be surprisingly accurate.
Using this 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, I compare it to other ideologies. Given all the arguments and facts that I have available, one will stand out as being most probable. Thus, we do not need absolute certainty to arrive at our conclusions.
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. And, because theories build on one another, this allows for entire systems of thought that are based on wishful thinking. And this 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 it in ourselves. 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 enjoy. Alternatively, we may avoid a guess that makes us feel bad. Thus, bias is a prejudice. It is an unfair, or even unjust, favoring of certain conclusions regardless of the true probability.
Nietzsche, a philosopher from Germany, recognized that people are biased so severely, that they become nearly insane in their conclusions. 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. They are not surprised to find 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.
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? It feels good to let it. 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 formal listing of the third step.
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 exclusivistic. 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 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 appraisal of the evidence. Be careful, bias does not necessitate error! A person could be on to the correct ideology despite being unpleasant, uneducated, and heavily one-sided in his analysis. 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 little 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), or you can read it online for free at www.thebigmystery.com.
Here is the essence of that book: First we start by eliminating bias and seeing it in our old way of thinking. Then we build from basic ideas that are probably true up to some relatively certain ideas about the universe and about us. For me, that path led to the conclusion that all things, including me, 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. That is, 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 but claims that the Jewish and Christian writings had been corrupted and were in need of correction.
I noticed that these three were all related. They each claimed Abraham (and before) 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.
The question: Who and what was Jesus? Jews claim that he was a lunatic or a liar. Christians claim that he was the embodiment of God. Islam claims that he was a prophet and that his message was corrupted.
To resolve this question, I first turn to the dependability of the reports about him. 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. Thus, I can conclude that the message didn't evolve with time as the church developed. For details on this step, please visit Dr. Gary Habermas' website or read one of his books: 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.
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). 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 make these claims, 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 most 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 will 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! 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 also taught that eternal punishment was the only other alternative. To be a "Christian," a follower of "Christ" by definition, you must accept what he taught. 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.
So... what are you going to do?
In the end, it would be quite ironic if you followed all of the advice on this site, 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!