Solving Religion with Logic

​Preface

Does a spiritual dimension exist beyond the physical one we can see, feel, hear, and touch?

If so, which of the world’s religions, if any, is truth?

It is the goal of this book to definitively reach a concrete answer to both questions, starting from an entirely neutral position, using nothing more than the widely available human intellect. The finished product of this work would not exist if the quest failed. Since you are reading this, the answers are indeed available, and, as you will see, can be proven with logic. That is exactly what the following pages will do. Before arriving at the conclusions, we must first clear our minds of all preconceived biases, devise an efficient work process, and then work our way through the naturally occurring issues which present themselves in the solving of such a serious dilemma.

The act of posing these two questions is by itself something of great debate. Many would insist they are not the proper questions to ask, and still others will not concede the logic of the second question following the first. This can only be the result of existing biases, because the assumption of a positive answer to the first question innately gives birth to the second.

The first question is asked because it encompasses the implications of the world’s most popular religious teachings, and the purpose of this work is to resolve, in finality, the many conflicting beliefs. Should we determine that a spiritual dimension does in fact exist, it follows that the next natural query is that of further details; its nature, its relationship with the physical dimension, and in what manner it may be accessed. If this information is knowable, it is reasonable to suppose that some person (or group of persons) who has dedicated themselves towards research on the subject may have already uncovered useful data on it. The search for answers should, therefore, naturally start with what has already been presented. Perhaps we can save ourselves the unnecessary work of reinventing the wheel. After analyzing all of the available information and proving or disproving it with unwavering, sound logic tests, we may or may not need to continue digging on our own for the much sought-after truth.

A fair objection, before we begin, is: Does it matter? If a spiritual dimension does exist, and if (at least some) knowledge of it is attainable by those of us living in the physical dimension, is it a worthwhile pursuit? Will coming into this knowledge have any potential benefits for a person, either in this life or in a possible continued existence beyond it? Several of the world’s largest religions insist that it not only matters, but it matters so greatly, that all other concerns are trivial by comparison.

However, there are some opposing religious and philosophical viewpoints which state that nothing matters at all. In other words, nothing a person thinks, feels, or believes has any bearing whatsoever on their mortal or immortal fates. The diversity of existing beliefs among the world’s religions is so great that it is unlikely a person could invent anything new if they tried. Whatever you can reasonably come up with on your own and decide to believe in, there is probably a group of people out there already vehemently teaching it as truth.

It is not the purpose of this book to accommodate self-derived religious truths. It is to determine whether or not there is a sovereign religious truth, through the use of a rational thought process. Inventiveness has no place in a quest to discover the self-evident.

While we must start from an entirely neutral position, we do know in advance that conflicting viewpoints cannot both be truth. This is only obvious, and needs no further logical dissection. Therefore, before we even begin, we can conclude that religious philosophies which attempt to embrace multiple opposing beliefs are pure nonsense, and as such, are wholly underserving of any consideration whatsoever. An example of this is Unitarian Universalism. If I say a plum is the one true God and you say the plum is only a piece of fruit but your bicycle is the one true God, perhaps one of us is right – but a third party who insists we are both correct can only be dismissed as a useless babbler who is wasting everyone’s time. Opposing teachings cannot both be true, any more than east and west can both be the same direction.

When it comes to answering the question of importance, one must logically conclude that the findings of our search could possibly be the most critical thing one ever considers. This is due to its unquantifiable potential. Our mortal lifespan is a finite, observable, measurable phenomenon. The prospect of an eternal existence dwarfs the mortal lifespan to such an unfathomable degree, it is rendered insignificant by comparison. To suggest this irrelevant speck of mortality controls the destiny of the immeasurable eternity is to speak of leverage so powerful it is beyond comprehension – but that is precisely our concern.

Aha! you say (and rightly so), where did I come up with this concept of eternity if we are supposed to be starting our investigation from a void and neutral mindset? By using a justifiable bit of foresight. If the conclusion to our first question proves to be yes, then the second question, which is consequential at that point, will force us to first research what is already claimed to be found. We can see this potential development well in advance, so it is not unreasonable to consider the possible consequences now. It is merely a matter of looking before we leap, which is generally considered wise. Since I live on planet earth surrounded by people and culture, I already know quite a bit about the beliefs of the world’s largest religions. Most of them teach, to one degree or another, that what we do here during our short tenure in the physical dimension determines our welfare in the eternity beyond. To put it another way, should the spiritual dimension prove to be there, the next thing we will be doing is examining those kinds of claims, searching for a logically provable truth.

Therefore, we are unavoidably cognizant of the potential importance of our investigation before we begin. It is so potentially important, in fact, that perhaps no other activity can soundly be justified until we find the answer, or at least determine with a great degree of certainty that the answer is not discoverable. The weightiness of the matter has often been described in a metaphor known as Pascal’s Wager, the logic of which is difficult to dispute. It’s basically a risk vs. reward decision. A famous preacher once paraphrased Pascal’s Wager by saying:

If heaven doesn’t exist, nothing matters. If heaven does exist, nothing else matters.

Opponents of Pascal’s Wager argue that in order to comply with the wisdom of it, one must know which religion to bet on, and having to make a choice between so many opposing beliefs exposes the futility of the notion. Why should one assume Biblical Christianity, the religious viewpoint most often referred to with Pascal’s Wager, to be the obvious take-it-or-leave-it proposition for placing one’s hope in an eternal paradise? These objectors do bring up a valid-seeming point, at least from their perspective. We will seek to solve their dilemma (assuming they actually care, which is a big assumption) when and if we arrive at our second question. Indeed; if we cannot resolve the second question, the findings of the first question are not beneficial, even if we conclude beyond every last doubt that the answer is yes.

Those who have read my other books know I am a Bible-believing Christian. My detractors will no doubt insist that as such, an unbiased, neutral starting point is impossible for me to achieve. Perhaps they are right in a personal sense, but such a complete brainwashing is unnecessary being as logical conclusions will stand or fall on their own merit, regardless of the personal biases of the one presenting them. Assuming a neutral position (the best we can), and then seeing if we can honestly work our way out of it using only facts and reason is all that is needed here. If the logic is unsound, the conclusions will fail miserably and categorically. Don’t go anywhere. You are going to have a very difficult time finding any weak links in our developments and conclusions.

Let’s face facts: we are all biased in our beliefs. This cannot be helped, because we are the product of our life’s experiences. If you were brought up in a Seventh-day Adventist church, for example, I will have a hard time convincing you God approves of my diet and church attendance schedule regardless of how skilled a debater I happen to be. Deeply ingrained beliefs do not exit at the first sign of a logical argument.

Yet, we need to subject ourselves to logic and sound reasoning in order to make important decisions in this life. It’s all we have going for us. If we really were created by a deity, then it is the deity who supplied us with our intellect, so it is a safe conclusion that our creator intended for us to use it. It even stands to reason that honestly exercising our deity-provided intellect may lead us to the truth about our creator. (There happens to be a Bible verse which promises we will find God when we truly open our hearts and search for Him, but I digress.)

We must first clear our hearts and open our minds if we are to genuinely seek unbiased religious truth. Yes, assuming a position of spiritual neutrality may be difficult to do for some, but it can be accomplished – enough for our purposes anyway – with effort and a little mental exercise. That is what we will strive for in the next chapter.

​Assuming the Semi-Agnostic Viewpoint

If we are going to use reason to arrive at religious truth, we must begin from a position of impartiality. The first order of business is to determine the proper starting position, which must be an attitude free of any religious biases or philosophical leanings. Of all the possible existing religious viewpoints, the one which is most suited for our purpose is agnosticism, with a slight modification. This is the viewpoint we need to assume.

Why not start from the atheist viewpoint, some may ask. Atheism is an extreme position, one which is doctrinally unyielding. Atheists believe something very specific with much conviction. This attitude is unbending. It cannot suffice for our purposes, because it is heavily biased, far from impartial.

Atheists dogmatically believe there is no spiritual dimension, based on a lack of immediately discernible evidence. Our purpose is to discover whether or not an unseen dimension exists, but atheism dismisses such a notion in advance purely on the basis that it is unseen. Holding the firm opinion that the term ‘invisible quarry’ is an oxymoron does not