Are Theists Mentally Akin to Conspiracy Theorists

[_sock puppet]

A new book by Will Storr, a journalist, is entitled The Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science. I've not read it, but find some of the ideas as reported intriguing:

• Some groups of people deny the irrefutable cold, hard facts as mistruths or, inconvenient.
• For example, Holocaust deniers and creationists view the world in defiance of ample historical evidence and centuries of scientific evidence.
• Storr tackles the mystery of why intelligent, seemingly rational people are capable of such unreasonable logic.
• That is, why don't the 'facts don't work' for these people of certain topics.
• Storr took a renowned creationist, John Mackay (who thinks the 9/11/2001 attacks were God's punishment) to a fossil excavation site, as part of his methodology.
• Storr studies both the thought process behind conspiracy theories and the unwavering rationalism of their opponents.
• Some of Storr's 'heretics' are harmless oddballs, including a woman who on a UFO-spotting session, cautioned: "If a UFO lands, you must wait until it's stopped completely before approaching. Only invite the ETs to come closer if it is absolutely safe to do so. If anyone gets zapped, the first-aid kit is in the back of my tent."
• Storr took former Holocaust denier David Irving on a tour of a Nazi death camp site in Majdanek, Poland; Irving claimed it was just 'a mock-up of a gas chamber', pointing out a door with a handle on the inside, explaining Jews could have got out and there has been no mass murder there--no opening mechanism and bolts on the other side--facts Irving conveniently ignored.
• Of creationist Mackay, Storr write that "[h]e says he is a creationist and can feel God in his body - and the book goes along with that idea. Despite all the evidence, no matter how convincing it is, he assumes it cannot be right."
• Storr recognizes 'confirmation bias' plays a large role in how we form our views, that confirmation bias relates to the neurological 'hero maker' that we all share.
• Storr hypothesizes that we each have an inner narrative, 'where we are struggling through our days to make better lives for ourselves' ... . "Our brain populates this idea with 'heroes' who support our views and 'villains' in our lives who we demonise - it's a very black and white process. This is the world we live in - the brain is a storyteller."
• Storr acknowledges that the judgment of rationalists can be just as inflexible, such as those that are adamant that there is 'no evidence for homeopathy' but many admit they haven't read any of the study literature supporting it -- many will dismiss it because they don't want to believe it in the first place.
• Storr maintains that stories are a powerful driving force in shaping our beliefs and 'understanding of the world', that we unconsciously create narratives which shape our beliefs.
• Most news reports, Storr admits, are written around a narrative based on facts, laced with a lot of fiction.

The Bible and Book of Mormon and PoGP are largely story telling. Whereas the D&C is more lecturing. I wonder if that difference is why many that have lost the faith bubble in the LDS truth claims yet find the Book of Mormon of value, though we hardly hear them mention the D&C in such a vein.

[Guest]

Are Theists Mentally Akin to Conspiracy Theorists? Interesting question.

Both theists and conspiracy theorists maintain unfounded belief by disregarding application of a few simple and fundamental rules, in the form of questions. When taken as a whole, this set of questions serve as a well proven and reliable bs detector.

These rules are contained in a BS Detector kit along the lines of that suggested by Carl Sagan and described by Michael Shirmer. This BS Detector Kit consists of ten easily applied tests to new claims or theories to be tested. These ten tests are in the form of simple questions. Roughly, these questions, in no particular order, are as follows:

1. What is the reliability of the source of the claim? (Is the source prone to magical thinking, etc.?)

2. Has this source made similar claims in the past?

3. Have the claims been verified by unbiased third parties? (Are outcomes of tests of the theory or claim reproducible?)

4. Does the claim or theory fit with the way the world works? (For example, does it require violation of the laws of physics, etc?)

5. Has falsification of the claims been tried? (For example, has someone tried to disprove the claims? Are there reasonable alternative explanations, etc?)

6. What is indicated by the preponderance of evidence with regard to the claim? (Does the weight of evidence support the claim?)

7. Does the claimant adhere to the rules of science?

8. Can the claimant provide positive evidence in support of the claim or theory?

9. Is the explanatory power of the new theory or claim better than that of other relevant theories or claims?

10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

Not surprisingly, Mormon truth claims, when subjected to these tests, puts the BS Detector needle into the red. In fact, by my analysis shown below, the BS Detector needle gets pegged:

1. Reliability of the Source: Joseph Smith was a documented treasure digger and a liar, who engaged in adultery, polyandry, polygamy and bank fraud.

2. Source of similar claims: Absolutely. Joseph Smith claimed all kinds of magical powers, visions, revelations, communication with angels, etc.

3. Claims been verified by others: in general, no. Many of Joseph Smith's falsifiable claims have, in fact, been falsified beyond any reasonable doubt.

4. Fits with the way the world works: No. Violate laws of science / physics: Yes.

5. Falsification been tried: Falsification has been tried and has succeeded in the case of most falsifiable truth claims. The alternative explanations have more explanatory power and require fewer assumptions / contingencies.

6. Weight of evidence: Weight of objective physical is overwhelmingly against LDS foundational truth claims.

7. Claimant adhering to the rules of science: No, not even close.

8. Claimant provides positive evidence for the truth claims: No.

9. Explanatory power of the claimant's theory or assertion better than the alternatives: No.

10. Personal beliefs driving the claims: Yes.

According to my analysis, Mormon truth claims, as provided by Joseph Smith, score a perfect 10 out of 10 on the Sagan BS Detector.

If you disagree with my evaluation of Joseph Smith's truth claims as tested by the BS Detector, I would be interested to know why and which tests you believe were not applied fairly.

[_Gadianton]

Lol! You make a good case. But there are some definitions in order. Are conspiracy theorists, the ones immersed in creating conspiracy theories, the same as people who generally believe in conspiracies? Are theists people who believe in God, or are they theologins? My main dispute would be aligning the typical believer in God with Steven Greer. Yeah, the typical believer in God who just putters around believing approximates the typical believer in UFOs. Often it's the same people. But they aren't even close to being as irrational as conspiracy theorists. Modern theologins who move people into religious activity do in fact think much like conspiracy theorists, and probably are also conspiracy theorists.

[_CaliforniaKid]

This is timely. I was just thinking about the similarity between Book of Abraham apologetics and birtherism. In both cases there are a number of unambiguous pieces of evidence that point to a "conventional" explanation, but a small minority insists upon ignoring those pieces of evidence and fixating instead on a number of small, perceived inconsistencies that supposedly point to a different conclusion. There's no particular reason to give these inconsistencies greater weight than the unambiguous evidence, except that doing so makes one feel important.

[_Nightlion]

If you disagree with my evaluation of Joseph Smith's truth claims as tested by the BS Detector, I would be interested to know why and which tests you believe were not applied fairly.

Your test is seriously flawed because Joseph Smith was NOT the claimant. He was a prophet and everything was of God and not of Joseph Smith. So, go figure.

Can you say that God is guilty of magical thinking? LOL!
I suppose you prefer nuts and bolts and refuse to look up higher. Pity.

[_moksha]

I think atheists are like those who jeer at the poor contrast of cave shadows.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think some theists can definitely act like conspiracy theorists, especially Young Earth types, but I don’t think all type of theism requires to people to cling to their beliefs like your typical conspiracy theorists.

[_DrW]

If you disagree with my evaluation of Joseph Smith's truth claims as tested by the BS Detector, I would be interested to know why and which tests you believe were not applied fairly.

Your test is seriously flawed because Joseph Smith was NOT the claimant. He was a prophet and everything was of God and not of Joseph Smith. So, go figure.

Can you say that God is guilty of magical thinking? LOL!
I suppose you prefer nuts and bolts and refuse to look up higher. Pity.

Thanks Nightlion,

Your post provides a prime example of magical thinking and underscores the point of the OP very well indeed.

[_DrW]

I think atheists are like those who jeer at the poor contrast of cave shadows.

I think atheists who used to be Mormons are more like those who are able to slip their chains and leave the cave.

[_sock puppet]

Thanks for the input about the broader point of the thread, but anyone have thoughts about this narrower idea:

The Bible and Book of Mormon and PoGP are largely story telling. Whereas the D&C is more lecturing. I wonder if that difference is why many that have lost the faith bubble in the LDS truth claims yet find the Book of Mormon of value, though we hardly hear them the D&C in such a vein.

?