There Are So Many Religions, They Must All Be Wrong

Earlier this year, comedian and outspoken atheist Ricky Gervais debated “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert on matters of religion. Watch these two smart dudes here. When Colbert asserted his belief in the triune God, Gervais replied:

“OK. But there are about 3,000 to choose from. Basically, you deny one less God than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.”

This is a common argument I hear from my atheist friends in one form or another. I think the gist is something like this:

1. There are many religions in the world;
2. Most religions claim to be the only right way;
3. The odds of being the “right” religion are quite low;
4. Thus, you are probably in the “wrong religion,” or it is quite likely that all religions are wrong.

Despite the fact that Gervais’s specific comment was about “3,000 gods,” I’m going to set that aside as a funny bit of rhetoric. Obviously there are many believers in polytheistic faiths; however, that misses what I take to be the main point of the argument. His discussion with Colbert actually centered on the existence of God, not the semantics used to describe God. I think it would be an absurd line to take with a Trinitarian like Colbert to suggest that his God is just one in a random pantheon. Most of my believer friends are at least somewhat syncretic and don’t think the God they worship is different than the God worshipped in many other faiths. Your Zeus is my Jupiter. It’s a clever sleight of hand to substitute “3,000 gods,” for the real argument about differences in belief. I mean, isn’t the real point in the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument more about differences in our beliefs about God’s attributes than God’s existence among 3,000 other gods? The right question here is not whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster is greater than Yahweh, but does God have meatballs? Is God sprinkled in Pecorino cheese?

So, I’d like to address what I think are some of the assumptions in this kind of argument:

1. All or most religions disagree in substantial ways.
2. Belonging to a religion means you have an exclusivist world view.
3. Believers arrive at their faith in completely arbitrary ways.

So let’s explore some of those assumptions.

All or most religions disagree in substantial ways

I find this to be the most interesting part of the argument, yet one that often gets lost. Personally, I’m more amazed at the many similarities between religions than I am worried about their differences. Specifically, why are so many different people with different experiences seeking to answer so many of the same questions? Why is there anything? Where do morals come from? Why does love win? Why are humans so vastly different from other animals in terms of abstract language? What happens after death? To be human is to consider these things and then approach the unapproachable through ritual and ceremony. As homo religiosus we have so much more in common than what lies on the surface. To be religious is to be fully human despite the color of our stained glass or orange robes.

Belonging to a religion means you have an exclusivist world view

This is often true. But if it isn’t true in even one instance, then the entire argument fails. The argument hinges on exclusive beliefs, otherwise there would be no sense in pointing out the differences. If some believers have inclusive beliefs, then their beliefs fall outside of this argument. You’re no longer dealing with a,”my god is greater than your god,” or, “my path is better than your path,” but instead, “we’re all trying to understand the same god through slightly different paths.” The argument suddenly collapses where it should, from the red herring of 3,000 different gods to a discussion of God or not God. Gervais is smart enough to know better, but he also has a great ear for a funny, catchy line. So props.

Believers arrive at their faith in completely arbitrary ways.

Have you ever played the Jelly Belly BeanBoozled game? There is a box of 20 jelly beans and 10 are sweet and 10 are, um… wacky? The wacky flavors include spoiled milk, canned dog food and dead fish. Players take their chances eating either a sweet candy or a similarly-colored wacky candy, spinning a wheel like a tiny jelly bean Russian Roulette. Aren’t humans strange? But believing in “one more god,” than Gervais is not some random spin of the wheel. If you put nine stinky sock flavored jelly beans in front of me, and I deliberately select the tenth berry blue, I am making a rational choice, albeit one that is conditioned by my culturally shaped tastes and preferences. But whatever my choice, I’m choosing jelly beans from a particular box. I don’t get to skip choosing, I have to choose one and it is based on the best information I have at that time. When confronted with a bunch of bad jelly beans, it seems that Gervais would rather claim that no good ones exist at all than sample through the box.

Are all religions wrong, or perhaps are they all a little bit right?