Religion is not the best strategy to achieve worthwhile human goals

I would say that the first paragraph is fraught with assumptions that work toward your point without consideration of any alternatives. I would agree for the sake of the integrity of the debate that most of us in some way attempt to maximize our own well-being. However, your argument that "conscience is also a factor" would ironically be completely against the idea of using logic in order to maximize happiness, since the conscience is primarily formed by society and religion itself, if not merely by the laws of society (which oftentimes themselves are not based upon completely logical thought). The conscience doesn't require thought or proof; something is simply right, or it is wrong, according to the conscience. Therefore, if one really can use their conscience as a guide to reach self-actualization, then religion is a COMPLETELY valid path to attaining this. I think the main problem is what we have to define as "maximizing well being." Is well-being simply health? Happiness? According to dictionary.com, it is: "a good or satisfactory condition of existence; a state characterized by health, happiness, and prosperity." Alright, let's go with that. In order to understand what affects our well-being, it is true that we must study the truth and "what effects[sic] our well being." I will agree wholly with this, being a psychology guy myself. We cannot understand what makes us happy and satisfied (well) without understanding the truth about how things work, for instance, within the brain. Your next point, though, doesn't seem to be at all connected with the rest of your argument. You argue that if we lie to ourselves while studying this, we can't find out the truth about maximizing our well-being, and therefore somehow can't attain wellness. This is a logical fallacy, because it makes the assumption that in order to receive the benefits of wellness, we actually have to understand how we go about being happy. This was not the same point you made earlier. You were arguing what it takes in order to understand wellness, not in order to partake in wellness. Observe your argument: A) In order to understand wellness, we need to study the truth. B) If we lie, we cannot understand the truth about wellness. ______________________________ C) We cannot be well unless we understand the truth (and therefore how we are able to be well). In other words, your argument tries to state that we have to understand wellness in order to be well with no real logical connection as to how that works. So, as you stated later in the second argument, human beings are completely capable of both understanding and fully accepting what makes us well, but also understanding that the truth of one situation is not necessarily the ideal way to achieve that wellness. In other words, people are quite capable of understanding the truth about what makes us well, and if that wellness stems from something outside of normal logic, that does not in any way affect their ability to enjoy it and feel satisfied. The third argument, in light of the above fallacy, becomes much weaker. If a person understands the truth about what makes him or her well, and the truth is that faith in religion makes him or her well, then partaking in religion is therefore the best way for that individual to attain self-actualization. And, because knowledge of technical wellness is not logically linked to the ability to be well, even someone who knows nothing about HOW they become well can still, in fact, be well by enjoying religion. Implicitly, if they decide they are not satisfied without religion, then they don't even really need to know HOW to make themselves more well, only that they feel their best when religious. How's that?