Leaderboard

That’s some deep thoughts and good analysis, Waysider ! …and you got me thinking about the nuanced differences between religious faith and conspiracy theories. One of the following articles mentions briefly religious faith as a wish to believe. For me that is an interesting idea I’d like to follow up. Religious faith – it’s NOT using something equivalent to the The Force in Star Wars – that works for saint and sinner alike. Religious faith may be more like a wish – to feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen (dictionary def.). Because a metaphysical truth is a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses – I tend to think a person of any particular faith probably has some level of doubt about their own religious persuasion. Since I left TWI, I’ve gone from seeing myself as a true believer and more like a Christian Agnostic – I accept the things of the Bible as true – I don’t know for sure but I hope they are. You also got me thinking about the ideology of wierwille that was presented in the PFAL class and later comprehensively detailed out in The Advanced Class. It tended to foster a false sense of intellectual superiority. We were the enlightened ones. We were the ones who really knew what was going on and were aware of all the forces in play – we bought into wierwille’s conspiracy theory that supposedly linked the spiritual realm with interpersonal and even political situations. The spiritualism/Gnosticism of wierwille is a lot like conspiracy theories in that they seem to have the same engine as the driving force behind it – being based on prejudice (preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience) and insufficient evidence. …anyway…some more “thought food” in articles below: “Many who believe and then propagate false conspiracy theories are also failing to own their intellectual weaknesses. One aspect of this is that we must learn to accept our intellectual limitations. For example, as a friend of mine recently and rightly pointed out to me, those who believe in a minority view in a particular field (e.g., climate change) or who believe in one or more conspiracy theories (e.g., the COVID vaccines are designed to allow the government to track our movements) ought to question why they, as a layperson, are intellectually capable of discerning that some outliers in a particular field are correct, rather than the overwhelming consensus of experts. This is a failure of intellectual humility because it is a failure to accept that one is simply not sufficiently equipped to make these kinds of judgments, at least in a reliable manner.” From: Psychology Today – the cure for belief in conspiracy theories https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethics-everyone/202110/the-cure-belief-in-conspiracy-theories “Why do you think some people latch onto conspiracies that are so clearly against commonly held beliefs? What’s the psychology behind that? There are many findings from psychology research that suggest that people who believe in conspiracy theories are more likely to have a variety of cognitive quirks. But the question touches on exactly how I like to think about conspiracy theories, which is that they begin with a rejection of authoritative accounts and generally accepted beliefs. That makes conspiracy theories different from, for example, religious beliefs that are grounded in faith and arguably a wish to believe. Conspiracy theories, in contrast, start with disbelief in conventional wisdom in favor of a kind of secret, malevolent, “real story” that’s being hidden from the public through some cover-up. There’s good evidence that this disbelief is rooted in mistrust, although I think that’s an underappreciated aspect of how conspiracy theories arise. What does it really mean to believe in something on a psychological level? That’s a great question. The reality is that it’s hard to find a consistent definition of what a belief is in psychology. I like to define a belief as “a cognitive representation of the nature of reality that includes our inner experiences, the world around us, and the world beyond.” Just don’t ask me to define “cognitive representation.” But when we talk about the act of believing, it can be helpful to break it down into components. For example, one important dimension of believing is conviction, which is the degree to which we hold onto beliefs in the face of different opinions or evidence to the contrary. The extent to which we believe something varies widely depending on a specific belief or a specific individual. And it’s these differences in conviction that are often more psychologically relevant than differences in the content of beliefs.” From Psychology Today Understanding the Psychology of Conspiracy Theories Part 1 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-1 “What’s the difference between scientific skepticism and denialism? Skepticism in science is about not believing in something unless there is objective evidence and being skeptical about the reliability of one-time, subjective observations. While conspiracy theories often claim to be skeptics, they’re often really more denialists who are actively rejecting the evidence. There’s a core feeling that authority and experts aren’t to be trusted, which then paves the way towards embracing more outlandish ideas. In this way, when mistrust manifests as denialism, it leaves us vulnerable to misinformation.” From Psychology Today Understanding the Psychology of Conspiracy Theories Part 2 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/understanding-the-psychology-conspiracy-theories-part-2

In the Advanced Class, Wierwille talked about how, when they were about to enter kindergarten, he was informed his kids would need to be up to date with their shots. He said he told the authorities that God would protect them from the harm of any disease by virtue of his believing. They weren't persuaded. It was then, he said, that it occurred to him that, if he could believe for them to be untouched by disease, he could just as easily believe for them to be unharmed by the shots. This is, of course, simply rationalization. I, personally, no longer subscribe to the so called "law of believing". For those who do, however, it raises the specter on how it all fits with the current situation. Can you believe away the damages of Covid? Can you believe away any potential harm from a vaccine? Food for thought.

I think we'd say that Lamarck was "reinventing himself" in today's parlance, Rocky. But I don't think that means his DNA would change markedly. I found this quite interesting academic paper about genetics and familial recombination of genetic material: Understanding genetic changes between generations | PNAS That's what Darwin's theory of evolution was about: how environment can change species. He worked that out by watching tortoises in the Galapagos Islands: tortoises that ate plants near the ground had rounded shells and shorter necks. Tortoises on islands with tall shrubs had longer necks and shells that bent upward, allowing them to stretch their necks. Survival of the most adaptable!! In human beings: skin colour, flare of nostrils. Even alcohol tolerance: some Asians lack the enzyme that metabolises alcohol and thus have a lower alcohol tolerance than Europeans. I am not, however, convinced that one's genes prevent one from changing one's mind. Is stubbornness learned, or inherited? Is adaptability and receptivity to new ideas learned, or inherited?