Truth is religion's weakness, no matter what Ross Douthat says in "Believe"

I've finished reading Ross Douthat's book, Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious. He failed to make his case with me, because I'm still not religious.

Not surprisingly, there were few discussions of truth in the book. This is religion's glaring weakness, no matter what faith appeals to you. The key question, how do we know it is true?, can't be answered persuasively by any religion, notably including Christianity (Douthat is proudly Catholic).

So Douthat recommends what he calls "true'ish" belief. Basically this means that if you believe in some sort of divinity inhabiting some sort of supernatural realm, you're closer to the truth about reality than if you're a godless materialist like me.

He writes:

Now suppose that, in fact, the truest religion in the world is not Protestant Christianity but Sunni Islam. Obviously the optimal scenario for you would have been to discover this fact and become a Muslim... So are you worse off, in your relationship to Islam's great truth, as a practicing Christian than a religiously agnostic homeless agnostic?

Surely not. As a Methodist you are arguably worshipping the same God as an observant Muslim, through the mediation of a figure, Jesus, who is revered in Islam as a great prophet, following a moral code that has a great deal in common with Islamic morality, and expecting a second coming that mirrors the hope many Muslims place in the coming of the messianic Mahdi.

They have true belief, but you have at least true-ish belief; you have taken a large step toward the fullness of truth, even if you aren't all the way to where you ought to be. 

Now suppose that not Islam but Buddhism, a different and more distant faith, is actually the truest path.  As a Methodist you have less in common with an observant Buddhist than you do with a pious Muslim -- but still more in common, most likely, than you would if you practiced no faith at all.

Good try. But the key word in the passage above is right at the beginning, "Now suppose...". We have to suppose that some religion is the truest in the world because there's no demonstrable evidence that any religion is true. 

Douthat stains throughout his book, and especially in the final chapters, to make a case for Christianity being the truest religion. He doesn't succeed in this -- unless you're already a devout Christian -- because all his signs of Christian truth are indirect, such as the popularity of Christianity both soon after the supposed life and death of Christ and in today's world.

Belief in a flat earth also used to be highly popular, along with the belief that the Sun revolves around a stationary Earth. Truth isn't a matter of popularity but of solid evidence. 

In his final chapter, where Douthat explains why he's a Christian, he examines the question of truth more directly, though still not persuasively. 

But isn't all this talking around an essential question, which is whether I think the tradition I've ended up practicing is actually true? Not just true enough, not just pointing toward God, not just generally accurate in its description of the nature of God or the cosmos, but true in its most important claims about reality?

Douthat says that this includes: monotheism, a diversity of supernatural beings, sacramental grace, the goodness of creation, Jesus being born by a virgin, Jesus dying on a cross and rising again on the third day.

He then raises what he considers the strongest empirical challenge to his beliefs: "the tension we have regarding spiritual experience and the specifics of any single faith tradition." Douthat offers mystical experiences as an example of this.

It's also clearly the case that the kinds of mystical experiences that people expect somehow shape the experiences they have. As noted previously, there are more reports of past lives being recalled in countries with a strong belief in reincarnation, more encounters with Krishna in India and Jesus in Indiana, more encounters with ghosts in cultures that believe strongly in ancestral spirits (as in Japan after the tsunami), and so on. And then there are various encounters, like what we see with the UFO phenomenon, that don't necessarily fit with any theology at all.

So how does Douthat explain why people who believe in different religions have mystical experiences that fit with their beliefs? Seemingly if there was an objective truth sitting out there in some supernatural realm, mystical experiences would be much more similar than they actually are.

His response is weak. First he says that some Christian writers consider that non-Christian mystical experiences constitute a deception, a demonic attempt to drive people away from Christian orthodoxy. Then Douthat says:

I do think specific spiritual snares exist, but as ever I am skeptical that God would allow pervasive deception of the kind that would have to be invoked if all non-Christian mystical encounters were traps or misdirections. 

Instead, I think the orthodox Christian (or any believer in the specific truth of a particular religion) has to assume both that the divine meets us where we are, even using the imagery and symbolism of other faiths, and also that there is a little more mystery to the supernatural realm than even a theological system founded on divine revelation can completely capture.

Probably this makes sense to some people. It doesn't to me. Douthat just sounds like someone who desperately wants to make a strong case for religious belief in the absence of strong evidence that any religion, including his own, is objectively true. 

His book is a valiant effort to do this, but in the end, it fails. Which to me demonstrates the weakness of religion and the strength of science, along with other approaches to learning the truth about reality that rely on facts, reason, and a willingness to admit that a hypothesis could be wrong.

Comments

[manjit]

Here's some religious truth for ya, if you haven't been brainwashed to deny it:

Look to his stand on Gaza: Pope Francis gave us moral leadership in amoral times

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/22/gaza-pope-francis-israel-outrages-hypocrisy

[Kranvir]

Gurinder singh dhillon was asked clearly on one YouTube video whether he was god.

His reply clearly, feeling very uncomfortable and with shifty eyes was
" I'm no god..." then says "what your searching for is truth."

Every blind brainwashed sangat member gives him the benefit of the doubt and say he's being humble but he actually says he is No God. But as christ says we are all part of god which means gurinder is the opposite of god , ie the negative power. He also indirectly admits he is not the truth as he said you should keep searcing the truth , and you ain't gonna find it in any RSSB satsang - or you would have found it by now right lol. So at that stage the cookie should have crumbled with the sangat , what are they doing where there is no truth, no enlightenment and a negative power in front of them blabbering nothing's ??? Also Is what rssb cult call seva really a trick to get you doing slavery for free? The jury is out.

[October]

Time has come truth to be revealed into all religions.i think in couple of years
Religions won't be looked at the way we did couple of years back.

[Ron E.]

I don’t doubt that there are various benefits (for some) in adopting religious belief: security, community, mental health, guidelines, consoling rituals etc. So, to many, it doesn’t matter whether their particular religion is true or not – that’s for the philosophical minded to delve into. And also, there are of course, perhaps an equal number of valid arguments against religious belief.

Reading these excerpts from Douthart, I get the impression that he is proselytising for his religion. Writing such a book as ‘Belief’ has the possibility of having people ‘come aboard’ with his beliefs and outlook – and writing is also a good exercise in collecting one’s beliefs, views, opinions and concepts together to make it all clearer to one’s self.

But religions and their beliefs are just not for me. I’m much happier and at home with reality at large, with nature, a few social contacts and a child-like inquiry and interest in life.

Manjit. No-one is doubting the stand that Pope Francis took against many issues and injustices: the question here is basically whether religious beliefs are true or not and where they stand in relationship to reality.

[manjit]

Ron E.

I've been reading Brian's blog and the comments here for nigh on 25 years.

I think I have a fairly good grasp of what people are and aren't saying here, both explicitly and with sub text.

So let me unravel my perhaps too enigmatic comment;

Is it a reality that religions and religious leaders have absolutely no positive effects on people and society?

Is it a reality that Biden was a good and decent man, and that his opponent is the devil in disguise?

Are any and all these viewpoints, repeated here ad nauseum for years, by lieu of brainwashing and indoctrination?

[Ron E.]

Manjit. I responded to your comment: - "Here's some religious truth for ya, if you haven't been brainwashed to deny it:" which didn't reflect the current post about religious 'truths'.

People seem to respond to this blog either because it reflects their point of view - or because it contradicts them. Either way, when/if the issues you list come up, then perhaps its relevant to comment/discuss them.

[sant64]

You don't even touch on Douthat's arguments. You just strawman his position as an argument against science. And then you strawman science to argue that it has declared atheism to be "truth." And then, somehow, without irony, you smile at Douthat's credulity and his unwillingness to admit that he's wrong and you're right.

Really a shame because Douthat's book is worthy reading.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Good try. But the key word in the passage above is right at the beginning, "Now suppose...". We have to suppose that some religion is the truest in the world because there's no demonstrable evidence that any religion is true"

That's ...simply laughable. Douthat's just twisting himself up into knots in order to somehow defend the indefensible.

Agreed, his "true-ish belief" defense falls flat. First, given that completely baseless supposition on which the whole defense is predicated, and which premise there is absolutely no reason to "suppose". As you very rightly point out, Brian.

----------

But even granting him his completely unsupported supposition, even then, his conclusion about Christianity most emphatically does not follow. His route from that " supposed" premise, and on to that conclusion, is littered with a whole host of other implicit assumptions and suppositions and fallacies. The whole of it amounts to no more than simply a question begged, a circuitous ipsedixitism essentially.

It would be fun to spend some time clearly tearing down his silly argument, and clearly showing how his argument fails, at step after step after step, even given his dodgy and unsupported premise/supposition.

But unfortunately, I haven't the bandwidth to do that just now. So I'll just stay content with pointing out the most obvious flaw there, that follows from within the articles of his own particular faith. To wit, the very first Commandment, that says, I am the Lord your God, and thou shalt have no other God, et cetera. Moses went ballistic back when the golden calf was worshiped, he didn't pat them on the back with a "Ah well, at least it's better than no God at all."

So that, if there's a God, and that God is different than the God of the Bible, but yet if that God is at all like the God of the Bible in terms of being a "jealous God": well then, you're much, much, MUCH better off worshiping no God at all, than worshiping a false God. Worship a false God, and the true God will fry your ass real good. If you can't or won't worship the One True God, then you're well advised to worship no-one at all, rather than worshiping some alternative God --- and this, basis the Bible that underpins Douthat's own particular religion.

----------

The above was focusing on one aspect of the man's halfwittery. I appreciate the other flaws you're shown up, as well, Brian. He seems to particularly favor the argumentum ad populum, at least in the portions you're quoted.