Can We Use the Wisdom of Crowds to Find Religious Truth?

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on how Pope Benedict XVI met with 300 religious leaders from a wide range of faiths to engage in interreligious dialogue in Assisi, the city of St. Francis. Where Pope Benedict had once criticized interfaith dialogue, the most recent gathering in Assisi reflected the pope's criticism of religious relativism. In addition to religious leaders from major world religions, included in the discussion were agnostics. Wall Street Journal: "However undiplomatic it may seem in certain context, Benedict's emphasis on objective truth is, by his lights, essential to the agenda for which he prayed in Assisi", i.e. we must find social justice from reason and nature in the reality of the natural environment.  

Is there hope for finding objective truth in religious dialogue? After all, if there is one true objective reality, if we are able to find that one objective reality, we should all be able to agree on that truth, right? Can the concept known as "wisdom of crowds" shed light on religious truths and spirituality?

Financial journalist James Surowiecki's ideas in the book "Wisdom of Crowds" published in 2004 may provide some answers to those questions. "Wisdom of Crowds" is a book about how the aggregation of information in groups produces better decisions than the ones that could have been made by any single member of the group. In short, a diversity of opinions by independently-deciding individuals (rather than herd instinct or collective groupthink) can produce correct decisions. Surowiecki's thesis has strong implications for economics and human psychology.

Surowiecki's book opened with the story of how in 1906 the British scientist Francis Galton came upon a weight-judging competition at the annual West of England Fat Stock and Poultry Exhibition. Individuals were lining up to guess the weight of an ox; those who had the best guesses would then receive prizes. A diversity of individuals (experts and non-experts) put in wagers on the ox's weight, 800 in total. After the contest was over and the prizes had been awarded, Galton ran statistical tests on the guesses and found that where the average guess of the crowd was 1,197 pounds, the actual weight of the ox was 1,198 pounds. Surowiecki: "In other words, the crowd's judgment was essentially perfect."

Thus, Surowiecki expanded upon the Galton example in order to show a simple yet powerful truth: "Under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them."

One common demonstration of the wisdom-of-crowds phenomenon is the jelly-beans-in-a-jar experiment where individuals guess on the number of jelly beans in a jar and the winner gets the jar of jelly beans. Surowiecki: "When finance professor Jack Treynor ran the experiment in his class with a jar that held 850 beans, the group estimate was 871. Only one of the fifty-six people in the class made a better guess."

One might remark, "Wisdom of crowds? What about stock market bubbles or the Dutch tulip bubble? What about the housing market and the global financial crisis? If anything, the crowds are unwise." Surowiecki's wisdom of crowds does have limits. He noted that wise crowds must meet four conditions: (1) diversity of opinion (each individual should have private information), (2) independence (individualistic free thinking), (3) decentralization (individuals are not bound by a core of information, but can draw from localized information), and (4) aggregation (an ability for individuals in a group to transform their "private judgments into a collective decision"). Surowiecki argued that, "If a group satisfies those conditions, its judgment is likely to be accurate."

And so, I ask: Can this principle of "wisdom of crowds" be applied to religion, and if so, what are the implications? On a planet where many individuals are searching for spiritual and religious truths, I think the idea of the "wisdom of crowds" can be useful and beneficial -- given respective boundaries to the concept.

In applying the wisdom-of-crowds principle to the world's religions, we must first get all the cards on the table. An important card in the discussion on world religions is the existence of those who do not believe in God, religion, and spirituality. Figures of the world's four largest religions today in terms of their percentage of the world population are usually estimated as follows: (1) Christianity (29%-32%), (2) Islam (19%-23%), Buddhism (7%-23%), and Hinduism (14%). In terms of actual numbers of individuals, estimates suggest that Christianity has two billion followers, Islam has 1.3 billion followers, 1.1 billion are secular/nonreligious/atheists/agnostics, Hinduism 900 million followers, and about 376 million are Buddhists.

Though these figures are merely estimates, they reflect general themes of religious populations in the world. The numbers also reflect a wide range of religious diversity on the planet Earth. After nearly 10,000 years of religious thought & dialogue and spiritual searching, one would think that we would have all come to some general consensus by now. Nevertheless, were there a parliament of the world's religions, no one religion would have a majority. It is significant to note that even atheists and agnostics would control a substantial share of such a parliament. However, if we take into account Abrahamic religions, it would appear that in light of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (despite great doctrinal disagreements between the three), Abrahamic religion would possibly carry a slight majority.

Let us apply Surowiecki's four conditions to religious sentiments. We already have diversity of opinion, and as such, each individual has a private store of information from one's own experiences. It is debatable whether religious perspectives meet the second condition of independence because individuals often carry the religious persuasions of their respective geography, i.e. one born in the Islamic Middle East will most likely be a Muslim, one born in a particular region of India will most likely be a follower of Hinduism. Even so, I would argue that at the end of the day, individuals are relatively independent in religious thought -- even aside from the overarching shadow of higher religious authorities and emotional blackmail from relatives. It is important to recognize the existence of emotional blackmail and groupthink, but at the end of the day, individuals make up their own minds on religious thinking with or without the blessing of religious authorities and relatives. Even in light of groupthink, more or less individuals are capable of maintaining due faith in that which they believe.

As for the third condition of decentralization, I would argue that individuals can draw on localized information in religion. This may take the form of individual experiences or familial lore and traditions. For example, in my family I recall once hearing a tale from my Grandma about her escaping the German army as a young girl during World War II while crawling through a farm field with her family in the Ukraine. At one point while crawling through the field as the German army was approaching, a tank shell landed not far from her, but by the grace of God, it failed to explode; the tank shell was a dud. Families may have similar stories and legends that are retold at family gatherings relating to various life experiences in love, war, career, etc. Where families may have individualized and localized tales of miracles and spiritual experiences, these phenomena can play into individuals' forming respective decisions on faith and religious activity. As in the case of religious conversions or religious awakenings, such localized information is crucial.

As for the fourth condition of aggregation, we have herein presented some form of aggregation in terms of estimated figures of world population. Even so, how do you form an average or median value of the world's religious population figures? What would a mean or average of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and atheism even look like? As such, it is highly debatable as to whether we could come to an aggregate mean or median regarding individuals' beliefs. Even were there a world parliament of religions, it is unlikely that such a parliament would provide definitive answers. Suum cuique pulchrum est; to each person his own is beautiful.

Were we to analyze the entire world as macrocosmically being the form of one individual, it is as if for two days out of the week the person is Christian, one day per week the person is Muslim, one day per week the person is Buddhist, one day per week the person is atheist, then Hindu for about a day out of the week, and then the individual would practice folk religions for the rest of the week. Quite a religiously diverse, confusing, spiritually exhausting, and all-in-all uncertain state of affairs!

Even further from sheer religious diversity, we must also take note of the fact that religious sentiments change over time. Were we to analyze the world's population in terms of religion in the year 1 AD, the figures would be radically different than today. Of course, no one would suggest that Roman, Celtic, or Norse paganism or whatever else religion was the "objective truth" of that time period, but now such religions are no longer objectively true today -- we live in an objective reality. Even so, such limits on metaphysical truths and societal sentiments are apparent: Just because the majority of individuals believed that the Earth was flat in the past did not mean that the Earth was actually, objectively flat in the past and then magically changed into a sphere once individuals discovered that the Earth was round.

There is also the dimension of individuals' changing religions and individuals' secretly harboring beliefs contrary to the ones they profess. Perhaps if it came down to a worldwide vote, one who publicly professed to be a Lutheran may believe independently that Catholicism or Judaism is the true religion. On the other hand, perhaps one who publicly professed to be a Catholic or Jewish may believe that Lutheranism is the true religion. Though there may be tradeoffs and turncoats with respect to religious beliefs, in general we would hope that the aforementioned estimates are adequately representative. And even in the case of tradeoffs and turncoats, one would hope that they would cancel each other out statistically.

If only superficially and with a bit of imagination, it would appear that the topic of world religion meets the four criteria of wise crowds. Even so, there is no majority consensus on religious belief. What are we to make of this? I believe there are two pragmatic solutions.

The first pragmatic solution is the idea that religion is more so about humanity than any transcendent spiritual or metaphysical ultimate reality (whether that be God, gods, angels, spirits, etc.), and as such, finding religious truth is fundamentally different than finding the correct number of jelly beans in a jar or the correct weight of an ox. Where emotion and one's upbringing can come into play, the "true religion" is thus akin to one's favorite sports team. For example, we could use the analogy -- true religion : Catholicism :: favorite sports team : Cleveland Browns. To say the Cleveland Browns or the New York Yankees or Malmo FF is a favorite sports team may have a spiritual and emotional component, but in one's professing a certain religion (as with geographical differences & sports teams), one "roots" for a religion based on one's geographical situation and upbringing. Just as it is conceivable that one growing up in Cleveland would root for the Browns or that a family from Pittsburgh that moved to Cleveland would raise their children to root for the Steelers, religious belief is determined by one's emotional psychology, upbringing, and geographical location. In this way, there need not be any religious disagreement or conflict over doctrines just as a Browns fan can understand how one from Pittsburgh would naturally root for the Steelers.

One could contend that unlike sports teams, religion corresponds to an ultimate reality and as such, religious belief is not like "rooting" for a sports team, but rather coming to terms with the ultimate reality of the universe in light of truth. However, religious beliefs and religious dialogues do not function in this way. We could have a worldwide religious debate on which is the "true religion" and in light of doctrinal contradictions or fanciful theological arguments, when everyone goes home they may have learned a lot from the debate, but each goes home to his own religious refuge. In a similar way, though one could profess that his favorite team is the Browns, even if the Browns travel to Pittsburgh and lose 37-6, the Browns are still that individual's favorite team. Religious debates and religious ideas do not operate under the same scientific guidelines as disciplines like biology, physics, or chemistry. In short, it is debatable whether religious searching corresponds to scientifically discovering objective truth of an ultimate reality.

In this way, most practiced religions appear to not be about an ultimate reality, but rather spiritualistic methods for individuals and societies to deal with the struggle for survival and therapy to deal with harsh facts of reality. Religion is a way for individuals to deal with their daily lives, something to get through the day -- much like sports.

A second pragmatic solution to the lack of consensus in the world's major religions is the idea that maybe everyone is right. If we live in philosopher Nick Bostrom's computer simulation as a universe where a "God" or "gods" rule over our universe, one may conjecture that such a God or gods would construct our universe so that individuals receive the afterlife or "ultimate reality" of their own choosing. One cannot help but notice that one's religious belief is tied to one's perspective on an afterlife. As such, where under Bostrom's simulation hypothesis an afterlife would be a viable possibility, perhaps for our universe, individuals get to fundamentally choose their own versions of the afterlife by way of their own actions and beliefs. In this way, when individuals pass on from this life, Christians get the Christian idea of an afterlife, Muslims get the Muslim idea of an afterlife, Jews get the Jewish idea of an afterlife, Buddhists get the Buddhist idea of an afterlife, and Hindus get the Hindu idea of the afterlife. As for atheists, where they chose to not believe in an afterlife, they get no afterlife. Thus, as a wise individual once said, "Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock and the door will be opened to you". Of course, such an afterlife scheme raises questions about whether ill individuals who undertake evil and kill people for the sake of religion get their expected reward after they die, but I'm sure some higher intelligence would have some way of working out these issues. A wise individual also once said, "According to your faith will it be done to you."

Either way, with a lack of consensus in the world population on the topic of religion, it appears that the wisdom of the crowds is not as helpful as we would like in seeking out spiritual and religious truths. Even still, though many may disagree on religious doctrines, I think the wisdom of the crowds may be helpful in putting religion into its proper perspective. Whether we like it or not, historically one's religion is more so determined by one's geographical location and upbringing than on individualized, independent searches for objective, religious truth. But even with crowds and herd instincts, perhaps religion is something to be determined by individuals according to their own spiritual appetites. In this light, though individuals may disagree, when all is said and done, we all may have the ability to find happiness. Perhaps at the twilight of the universe when all the issues of the present are far behind us, God will find some way to bring all those willing to believe into agreement in a way where everyone's happy. If only for those who believe, "With God all things are possible."