What Is Truth?
Knowing Reality in an Age of Manufactured Narrative
Renaissance Ministries | March 30, 2026
A Fellowship Discussion Essay
“Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?”
— John 18:38
“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
— John 8:32
“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.”
— John 3:20-21
Introduction: The Epistemological Crisis
Michael Smith is a digital creator with 44,000 followers who describes himself as “some sort of mutant, part Ayn Rand, part Victor Davis Hanson, and part Friedrich von Hayek.” In a recent post, he dissected something he calls “Schiff Syndrome” — the pattern by which intelligent people come to believe things that aren’t true, not because they’ve stopped thinking, but because their thinking is being guided by forces other than truth.
His analysis is brilliant. It’s also terrifying. Because it leaves us with a question he doesn’t answer:
If we can identify all the mechanisms by which people are deceived — cognitive bias, social currency, identity-based reasoning, the preference for coherence over accuracy — how do we know that we ourselves are not being deceived?
Smith warns us against naive belief. But what is the alternative? Sophisticated skepticism? That can become its own prison — a cynicism that trusts nothing and therefore can act on nothing.
This essay explores the epistemological crisis of our age: In a world saturated with propaganda, manipulation, and motivated reasoning, how do we know what is true?
Part I: Smith’s Diagnosis — Schiff Syndrome
The Pattern
Smith begins with a concrete example:
“For years, Adam Schiff went on CNN and MSNBC claiming he had ironclad evidence of Trump colluding with Russia to rig an election. To this day, he has produced nothing but innuendo. Yet enough people shared his belief to reward him with a Senate seat.”
The key insight:
“It was never about whether he had the goods; it was about whether people wanted him to have them. They hated Trump, and the idea that damning proof existed—just out of reach—was both motivating and comforting.”
This is not a failure of intelligence. It’s a success of motivated reasoning. People believed Schiff not because his evidence was compelling, but because his conclusion was desirable.
The Mechanism
Smith dissects the cognitive process:
“When people lack information—or face complexity they cannot fully resolve—they do not leave the space empty. The human mind is not built for suspended judgment. It is built to complete patterns, impose order, and resolve uncertainty. And when it does, it reaches not for what is most accurate, but for what is most coherent with the story it already believes.”
The sequence:
- Uncertainty creates discomfort — The mind cannot tolerate ambiguity
- Pattern completion is automatic — We fill gaps unconsciously
- Coherence trumps accuracy — We prefer stories that fit over facts that don’t
- Identity precedes evidence — We reason from who we are, not what we see
“People reason from identity first and evidence second. The operative question is rarely ‘What is true?’ in isolation, but ‘What fits with who I am, what I value, and the people I align with?'”
The Social Economy
Smith adds a crucial layer — the social incentives that reinforce false belief:
“In many modern environments, especially online, status comes not from being correct but from being distinctive. ‘Secret knowledge’—the idea that one sees what others cannot—functions as social currency. It signals independence, intelligence, and insider status, elevating the believer above the crowd.”
And the feedback loop:
“Beliefs rejected by the broader public do not lose value; in some circles, they gain it. Rejection becomes evidence of suppression, and suppression becomes evidence of truth. The cost of being wrong is replaced by the reward of being contrarian.”
The Mencken Conclusion
Smith lands on H.L. Mencken’s formulation:
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
Or as Smith puts it: solutions that are “neat, plausible, and wrong.”
Part II: The Problem Smith Doesn’t Solve
Knowing the Mechanism Doesn’t Give You the Truth
Here’s the difficulty: Smith’s analysis is hyper-astute. He understands exactly how propaganda works, how motivated reasoning operates, how social incentives corrupt epistemology.
But knowing all this doesn’t tell you what’s actually true.
You can be fully aware that:
- Your mind prefers coherence over accuracy
- You reason from identity first
- Social rewards can corrupt your judgment
- Ambiguity is psychologically uncomfortable
- Simple explanations are seductive
And still not know:
- Did Netanyahu actually influence Trump’s Iran policy?
- Was January 6th an insurrection or a protest that got out of hand?
- Is the 2020 election fraud story true, false, or partially true?
- What actually happened with Epstein?
Smith warns us against Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Megyn Kelly “drifting into something approaching madness.” But is he certain they’re wrong? Or is he certain that their conclusions are uncomfortable for his identity and social position?
The tools of critique cut both ways.
The Infinite Regress
This is the epistemological problem: once you recognize that all human knowing is filtered through bias, identity, social incentives, and the preference for coherence — how do you escape?
You can’t step outside your own cognitive apparatus. You can’t access reality unmediated. Every fact you encounter is:
- Selected by someone
- Framed by someone
- Interpreted through your existing categories
- Evaluated against your existing beliefs
- Accepted or rejected based partly on who told you
Is there any exit from this hall of mirrors?
Part III: The Practical Responses
1. News Aggregation — Ground.News and Its Limits
One response is to triangulate — to read sources from multiple perspectives and try to locate the truth somewhere in the middle.
Services like Ground.News explicitly show you how the same story is being covered by left, center, and right sources. The theory is that by seeing all perspectives, you can identify the common facts and discount the spin.
The strengths:
- Exposes you to perspectives you wouldn’t otherwise see
- Reveals the editorial choices different outlets make
- Helps identify which facts are disputed vs. agreed upon
The limits:
- Assumes the truth is somewhere in the middle (not always true)
- Still requires you to judge which sources are more reliable
- Can create false equivalence between strong and weak claims
- Doesn’t help with stories that all sides ignore or distort
2. Trusted Interpreters — Finding Honest Guides
Another response is to identify people who have demonstrated reliability over time — people who:
- Have been right when it was costly to be right
- Have admitted error when they were wrong
- Don’t shift their principles based on who benefits
- Show their work rather than demanding trust
Smith himself is doing this work — being the kind of thinker you can trust because he’s willing to criticize his own side (Owens, Carlson, Kelly).
The strengths:
- Outsources some of the cognitive load
- Benefits from another mind’s expertise
- Can learn the reasoning process, not just conclusions
The limits:
- Even reliable people are wrong sometimes
- Creates dependency rather than independent judgment
- The person you trust might be captured in ways you can’t see
- Still requires you to judge who is trustworthy
3. Sophisticated Skepticism — Knowing the Tricks
A third response is to become deeply educated in the mechanisms of manipulation:
- Logical fallacies
- Propaganda techniques
- Cognitive biases
- The tricks of man and Satan
The theory is that if you can identify when you’re being manipulated, you can resist it.
The strengths:
- Makes you a harder target
- Helps you see through obvious manipulation
- Creates intellectual humility about your own vulnerability
The limits:
- Knowledge of manipulation doesn’t tell you what’s true
- Can become a tool for dismissing everything
- Sophisticated skeptics can still be fooled (or fool themselves)
- Can lead to paralysis — unable to believe anything
4. Probabilistic Thinking — Degrees of Confidence
A fourth response is to abandon binary truth claims and think in probabilities:
- “I’m 70% confident that X is true”
- “The evidence for Y is stronger than for Z”
- “This claim has high uncertainty; I should hold it loosely”
The strengths:
- Matches the actual state of our knowledge
- Allows action without certainty
- Makes updating beliefs less threatening
The limits:
- Hard to maintain psychologically
- Doesn’t satisfy the human need for coherence
- Can become an excuse for never committing
Part IV: The Christian Response
The Pilate Question
Pilate asked Jesus, “What is truth?” — and did not wait for an answer.
The question was either rhetorical (expressing sophisticated cynicism) or genuine (but lacking the patience to receive the answer). Either way, Pilate represents the epistemological crisis of every age: standing in the presence of Truth itself and unable to recognize it.
Jesus’ Claim
Jesus made a claim that cuts through the epistemological maze:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)
This is not a claim that Jesus has information about truth. It is a claim that Jesus is truth — that truth is not primarily propositional but personal.
What does this mean for our epistemological crisis?
Truth as Personal, Not Just Propositional
The modern epistemological crisis assumes that truth is a matter of propositions — statements that correspond to reality. The question is how to verify which propositions are accurate.
But the biblical concept of truth is richer. In Hebrew, emet (truth) is related to emunah (faithfulness). Truth is not just accuracy but reliability, trustworthiness, integrity.
A person can “do truth” (John 3:21) — truth is something you live, not just something you know.
This suggests that the path to truth is not primarily intellectual but relational and moral:
- You come to know truth by being truthful
- You recognize truth by being aligned with the One who is Truth
- The person who “does evil hates the light” — moral corruption blinds
The Moral Prerequisite
Jesus said something that bears directly on Smith’s analysis:
“If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17)
The condition for knowing truth is willingness to do God’s will. Moral alignment precedes epistemic clarity.
This inverts the modern assumption. We think: first I need to know what’s true, then I can decide whether to obey. Jesus says: first commit to obedience, then you will be able to know.
Why would this be? Because, as Smith brilliantly documents, our knowing is corrupted by our wanting. We believe what serves our identity, our desires, our social position. The only way to purify knowing is to purify wanting.
The person who genuinely wants God’s will — who has subordinated personal desire to divine purpose — has removed the primary source of epistemic corruption.
The Holy Spirit as Guide
Jesus promised:
“When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:13)
This is not a promise that Christians will have perfect knowledge about every political controversy. It is a promise that those who are indwelt by the Spirit have access to a guide who can lead them into truth.
What does this look like practically?
- Discernment — A spiritual sense for what is true and false, right and wrong
- Conviction — Inner witness when something is off, even if you can’t articulate why
- Community — The body of Christ providing multiple perspectives and accountability
- Scripture — A fixed reference point that doesn’t shift with cultural fashion
This doesn’t eliminate the need for the practical tools (aggregation, trusted interpreters, skepticism, probabilistic thinking). But it provides a foundation beneath them — a source of guidance that transcends human cognitive limitations.
Part V: A Framework for Truth-Seeking
1. Moral Purification First
Before asking “what is true?”, ask “what do I want to be true?”
Identify your motivated reasoning:
- What conclusion would serve my identity?
- What would be comfortable for my social position?
- What do I fear being true?
- What am I hoping is true?
Confess these biases. Bring them into the light. Ask God to purify your wanting so your knowing can follow.
2. Humility About Certainty
Hold most political and factual claims with appropriate uncertainty:
- What is the quality of the evidence?
- How much do I actually know vs. assume?
- What would change my mind?
- Am I willing to be wrong?
Reserve certainty for what Scripture clearly teaches. Hold human analysis — including your own — more loosely.
3. Test by Fruit
Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20).
This applies to truth claims as well as people:
- What happens when people believe this?
- Does this belief produce love, joy, peace — or fear, division, hatred?
- Does this narrative make people better or worse?
- What kind of person does this belief create?
This is not the only test — some truths are uncomfortable. But persistent bad fruit is a warning sign.
4. Consistency of Principle
Apply Smith’s test: would you believe this if the roles were reversed?
If Schiff had been a Republican claiming evidence against a Democratic president, would you evaluate the claim the same way? If the same tactics were used by your side, would you defend them?
Inconsistency is a sign of identity-based reasoning. Consistency is evidence (not proof) of principle-based reasoning.
5. Community Discernment
Don’t try to figure everything out alone. The body of Christ has many members:
- Different perspectives
- Different expertise
- Different blind spots
Iron sharpens iron. The fellowship exists partly for collective discernment — testing ideas against multiple minds, catching each other’s biases, praying together for wisdom.
6. Action in Uncertainty
Sometimes you must act without certainty. This is not failure — it is the human condition.
Act on the best information you have. Remain open to correction. Do not demand certainty before you can move.
But distinguish between:
- High-stakes moral decisions — where Scripture provides clear guidance
- Political/factual assessments — where uncertainty is inherent and humility appropriate
Don’t treat your political analysis with the same certainty you give to “thou shalt not murder.”
7. Fixed Points
Maintain fixed reference points that don’t shift:
- Scripture as the ultimate authority
- Christ as the embodiment of truth
- The moral law as non-negotiable
- The church as community of discernment
When everything seems uncertain, these remain. They are the bedrock beneath the shifting sand.
Part VI: What We Can and Cannot Know
What We Can Know with Confidence
- Moral truth — God’s standards of good and evil (revealed in Scripture)
- Spiritual truth — The gospel, the nature of God, the way of salvation
- Personal truth — What you have directly experienced and witnessed
- Relational truth — The character of people you know well over time
What We Hold with Appropriate Uncertainty
- Political narratives — Who is responsible for what, what are the real motivations
- Historical interpretations — What “really” happened and why
- Predictions — What will happen if X policy is enacted
- Institutional claims — What governments, media, experts tell us
What We Should Be Skeptical About
- Claims that align too perfectly with what we want to believe
- “Secret knowledge” that elevates the believer above the masses
- Simple explanations for complex events
- Narratives that demonize the other side completely
- Information from sources with obvious conflicts of interest
Part VII: The Mencken Trap and Its Escape
Smith quotes Mencken: solutions that are “neat, plausible, and wrong.”
This is the trap: the human mind craves neatness and plausibility. Reality is messy and often implausible. We will always be tempted to accept the satisfying story over the complicated truth.
The escape is not to stop wanting understanding. That would be intellectual death.
The escape is to want truth more than comfort. To be willing to live with uncertainty rather than false certainty. To prefer the uncomfortable truth to the satisfying lie.
This is a moral achievement, not just an intellectual one. It requires:
- Courage to face what you don’t want to see
- Humility to admit what you don’t know
- Faith that truth will ultimately vindicate itself
- Community to support you in the discomfort
And ultimately, it requires relationship with the One who is Truth — not just accurate propositions, but the Person who said “I am the truth” and who promises that “the truth shall make you free.”
Part VIII: Discussion Questions for the Fellowship
On Smith’s Analysis
- Smith describes “Schiff Syndrome” — believing something because you want it to be true. Can you identify examples of this in your own thinking? On your own “side”?
- He says, “People reason from identity first and evidence second.” How do you know when you’re doing this? How do you resist it?
- Smith notes that “secret knowledge” functions as social currency. Have you experienced this — the temptation to believe something partly because it makes you feel smarter than the masses?
- He criticizes Owens, Carlson, and Kelly — people on his own side. What does it take to criticize your own side? Why is it important?
On Epistemology
- What practical methods do you use to determine what’s true about political/factual claims? How well do they work?
- Is triangulation (reading multiple perspectives) sufficient? What are its limits?
- How do you decide who to trust as an interpreter of events? What criteria do you use?
- Smith’s analysis cuts both ways — the tools of critique apply to him too. How do we avoid the infinite regress of skepticism?
On the Christian Response
- What does it mean that Jesus is “the truth” (John 14:6) — not just that He speaks truth, but that He is truth?
- John 7:17 suggests that moral alignment precedes epistemic clarity. Have you experienced this? What does it look like practically?
- How does the Holy Spirit guide into truth? What does this feel like? How do you distinguish it from your own preferences?
- How should the fellowship function as a community of discernment? How do we help each other see past our blind spots?
On Application
- What claims are you currently holding with too much certainty? What would it take to hold them more loosely?
- What claims are you avoiding because they’re uncomfortable? What would it take to examine them honestly?
- What are your fixed points — the truths you will not compromise regardless of what arguments are made?
Key Quotes Worth Preserving
On motivated reasoning:
“It was never about whether he had the goods; it was about whether people wanted him to have them.”
On pattern completion:
“The human mind is not built for suspended judgment. It is built to complete patterns, impose order, and resolve uncertainty.”
On identity-based reasoning:
“People reason from identity first and evidence second. The operative question is rarely ‘What is true?’ in isolation, but ‘What fits with who I am, what I value, and the people I align with?'”
On secret knowledge:
“‘Secret knowledge’—the idea that one sees what others cannot—functions as social currency.”
On the feedback loop:
“Rejection becomes evidence of suppression, and suppression becomes evidence of truth.”
On the function of false belief:
“Many beliefs that appear absurd from the outside are, from within, perfectly rational. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do: provide coherence, confer belonging, and—perhaps most importantly—make the believer feel like one of the few who truly understands what is going on.”
The Mencken formulation:
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
A Closing Prayer
Lord God, You are Truth. Not just accurate information, but Truth itself — faithful, reliable, trustworthy, whole.
We confess that our knowing is corrupted by our wanting. We believe what serves our identity, our comfort, our social position. We prefer coherence to accuracy, simplicity to complexity, certainty to humility.
Purify our wanting so our knowing can follow. Give us the courage to face truths we don’t want to see. Give us the humility to admit what we don’t know. Give us the faith to live with uncertainty rather than grasp at false certainty.
Send Your Spirit to guide us into truth. Help us discern between Your voice and our own preferences. Give us community that sharpens our thinking and catches our blind spots.
And fix our eyes on Jesus — the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In a world of manufactured narrative and motivated reasoning, He remains the fixed point that does not shift.
Make us people who do truth, not just believe it. Let our lives be wrought in God, manifest in the light.
In Jesus’ name, Amen.
“Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.”
— Proverbs 23:23
“The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment.”
— Proverbs 12:19
Source Material: Michael Smith (@utahprez), Facebook post on “Schiff Syndrome” and motivated reasoning (March 28, 2026); H.L. Mencken on simple solutions; Renaissance Ministries fellowship discussions on discernment.
Related Christos Content: “The Kings You Cannot See” (essay on manufactured movements); “Planting Roots in the Cold” (March 30 fellowship); Christos AI Theological Grammar (Part VI: Engaging Parasitic Ideas).