Conspiracy Theory, Substitution for Religious Impulses?

by **timboucher** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:02 pm

Interesting piece from Urban Survival, but there's no permalink, so I'm reposting it here. <a href="http://urbansurvival.com/week.htm">urbansurvival.com/week.htm</a> The original author is Pete Markiewicz , and his site is here, though I don't see it on his site. <a href="http://www.plyojump.com/">www.plyojump.com/</a> Anyway, here it is (everything after this is the author's words, including the last bit of commentary): ________________________________________________ I've been thinking lately about the pull that religion had over people's lives in the past (and continues to do so in many places in the world). How could humans (with no genetic changes) abandon their ancient attraction to religious belief suddenly during the few centuries? Are we really smarter than earlier cultures? Or have we applied our bent to religion to a set of new targets? My current idea is that widespread belief in often absurd "conspiracy theories" has sopped up people's religious impulses. I'm not talking about rational inquiry into alternative causes, but uncritical belief. Nobody is actually an athiest. We have a new religion - but it is based on the behavior of powerful humans rather than unseen gods. These mysterious "evil" humans have corrupted an initially perfect world of the past for their own ends. Everything bad is caused by them. I've been driven by this thinking recently by several experiences. First, I teach students at a local college. I teach a lot of entry-level computer classes, as well as a "general studies" Biology class. The reactions of the supposedly sophisticated, non-religious students demonstrate a clear "retargeting" of their religious impulses. Second, a conversation I overheard in my apartment building a few days ago crystallized my impulse. Here's the conversation from my apartment: I think it's fair to say that many people in the US today do not see the lightning bolts that struck hapless scoutmasters this week as the result of a specific, conscious decision of an angry god. We all know they are physical phenomena, which operate without intelligence. This is one of the differences between religion and non-religion - intent. If lightning bolts strike due to various tumblings of matter and energy, it isn't religion, despite what the "science as religion" crowd says. The scouts are electrocuted for no reason, which means no human values need be applied to the event. But, if the lightning bolts happened "for a reason" then religion is involved - there is a moral intent bound with the event. Imagine my surprise yesterday hearing my neighbor talking with friends about the second scouting electrocution. This neighbor works in the entertainment industry, is frantically anti-Bush, and hates "the religious right." Speaking to her friends, this neighbor pointed out that said lightning bolts slammed down just prior to a "Bush visit." She noted that "they" - the radical religious right - must be very upset that a lightning bolt hit prior to a Bush visit - I suppose they would interpret it as a bad omen. But then my neighbor (who normally seems reasonable) broadly hinted to her friends that there was "something behind" this electrical event. A secret, which she did not clarify, was the REAL reason for the lightning bolt. What was it? She didn't quite say - we were left to imagine the CIA manipulating the weather, a secret weapon tested on the American public, a warning to Bush from his "masters" - you name it. Here's the fascinating part. In the same speech, she made it abundantly clear that she was an "athiest" and hated "religious" people. But here she was imagining hidden causes, meaning, and purpose behind the event. She was doing EXACTLY what she thought "the religious right" would do - ascribe meaning to a random physical event! Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether the lightning bolt actually from a flying saucer - despite herself, this woman believes in higher powers, and in miracles. I listened for an hour as she darkly hinted at the sinister implications of the lightning strike - never exactly saying that it was "meant" to happen - but implying this very thing over and over. Who is "god" in her religion? People. Instead of a big thunder-being up in the sky making the rain come, sneaky people are in a vast conspiracy. Like the unseen the god, "they" cannot be touched, uncovered, or even seen by lowly mortals. Yet the believer knows that they are there - no mater what the physical evidence is. In their faith, the believer triumphs over those who have not been enlightened. I believe (with my degree in Biology) that the religious impulse is partly innate. Rather than moving beyond religion, as Marx, Skinner, and others hoped we would do, we have simply directed our prayers to a different object. Instead of classical gods, our new gods are people - people with vast, mysterious godlike power. There are several reasons for the change in our civilization from a "god" - worshiping culture that one that worships mysterious humans in conspiracies. These changes challenged the old gods, but replaced them with equally supernatural new ones. These have led to a set of non-rational beliefs about the world which characterize our "conspiracy" religion. In short, here is a summary: 1. Everything is controlled by a higher power - there are no random events. But this power is human, and human only. 2. Secret groups of people with this power cause everything to happen. 3. They have this vast power because absolutely anything is possible. As long as I imagine it, it can and will happen. There are no limits except human ones. 4. Since there are limits in my life, they can only have been created by humans. 5. If not for the conspiracy, we would be in a Paradise. All bad things in the world were caused by humanity - there is nothing outside humanity. Before humanity had godlike powers, everything was perfect. Below, I've laid out the logical steps that have led to this belief system: Belief #1 - "Thou shalt accelerate your technology forever faster" At one time, technological innovation was seen as just that - a better way of doing things. This was characteristic of the 19th and early 20th centuries, in which much of the real "heavy lifting" of technological took place. People celebrated the ability of the human mind to discover things. But now, technological advance is an unstoppable force int its own right, independent of humanity itself. It isn't that we manage to discover new technology - instead, an unstoppable spiritual force force us to advance technology ever-faster. One of the clearest examples of this religious belief is the so-called "Moore's Law" which says that computer speeds double every 12-18 months. When Moore originally published his paper in the 1960s on compute speed increase, he presented it as an empirical study of the semiconductor industry. At this point, no religion was evident. But now we have moved to a new idea - Moore's Law is a rock-solid given and computer makers "must" continue to to speed up computer because Moore's Law requires them to do so. It is moved from a statement of being to a moral law! Consider the difference in the following statements: a. Computer speeds are doubling every 18 months due to shrinking transistors (~1965). b. Computer speeds ALWAYS double every 18 months. Any company that doesn't double the speeds of its computers is "not upholding" Moore's Law. But will someone double those speeds - Moore's Law cannot be stopped (~2000). But never, fear, Moore's Law is being upheld in the latest gadget. In fact, computers are not following Moore's Law anymore. PC speeds topped out at about 3 GHz clockspeeds a few years ago, and Intel announced in late 2004 that they were NOT going to produce a 4GHz cpu for the indefinite future. True to the religious aspects of Moore's Law, writers in the tech industry ignored this challenge to their faith. They take the rise of 64-bit computing as "proof" that Moore's Law is still active - despite the fact that 64-bit computers are not faster - though they can more RAM. "Multicore" processing is also taken as proof for Moore's Law "making" something happen just as we can't increase clockspeeds. In other words, Moore's Law "acted" and a new way to increase computer speed automatically appeared. This is despite that fact that for most non-server applications multicore systems give minimal speed boosts. It's similar to the faith that every time humanity use up one energy source (wood, coal) another, better energy source "automatically" appeared. Even though the tech writers know there are limitations at some level, they remain confident that "somehow" Moore's Law will be upheld and computers will get faster forever. Their faith that mysterious forces also ignore the fact that the utility of computers (their real value) have not increased with speed. The 2004 Macintosh G5 computer is about 1000 times faster than the 1984 Macintosh in hardware terms. But go back and look at the 1984 Mac. Running at 1/1000 the speed, it sported a useful word processor using full window/mouse/graphical systems. It also had a drawing program that looks very much like Adobe Photoshop today. True, the word processor didn't have a spell check, and the paint program was in black and white. But are today's word processors and paint programs really 1000 times better than 1984? I would guess they are 10-20 times better. Even if computer speeds are rising, their utility to society is rising at a much slower rate! Yet, Moore's Law is now a true LAW that all tech companies must uphold or face destruction. Any time there's an announcement of a change in memory, processors, etc, the tech industry assures that the new innovation ensures that they are keeping the faith - that Moore's Law will be kept, no matter what. Today, even though computers are leveling out in speed and utility, a stubborn faith in endless speed increases persists. This belief system reaches its extreme stage in those beliving in the "singularity" - a sort of technological Rapture. These people believe that Moore's Law is accelerating, and that computer power will literally become infinite about the year 2040. The basis for their belief? "Moore's Law". But it is not a law, it is an observation, at best a hypothesis - not a unstoppable force. Moore's Law forms one of the new pillars of faith among the general public as well. Outside the techies (hoping to be transported to the divine by the multi-pentahertz machines of 203<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> , the average person firmly believes that "technology always gets better". Tell someone that technology can halt, even reverse its advance, and you are met with disbelief. You've challenged a tenet of their new religion - the god Technology will always get better despite us. In my mind, this is why it is so hard for many people to believe that we might have some real problems coming in permanently higher energy prices, loss of oil, degradation of the environment, etc. Try telling someone that computers won't be that much faster in 10 years, and they shake their head. They "know" they will be, even if they know absolutely nothing about how computers work. A similar faith surrounds economics. People simply won't believe that prosperity always increases - things can only go up. There can be no economic waves or cycles. If they happen, "they" made them happen. If we aren't richer this year, it must be a conspiracy. Belief #2 - Anything is possible if you "wish upon a star" I've adapted this idea from James Kunstler's excellent writing. The belief in Moore's Law, along with increasingly detailed fantasies in movies and games has made people believe that "anything" is possible. The fact that technology has improved means it will improve infinitely. This goes beyond believing that more will be possible in the future - it is the belief that absolutely anything is possible, or will be shortly. This belief is qualitative, and ties in with the decline in quantative thinking. If someone imagines something in their head, it must therefore be possible. There can be no limits, even quantative, physical ones. It's like the miracle of the loaves and fishes - if I can imagine bread, then it follows that everyone can be fed from one loaf. Case in point: I've tried repeatedly to explain to my students that a purely solar-powered car can't be like cars today due to the laws of thermodynamics. In full sunlight a few thousand watts fall on a car, and if this was 100% converted to energy the car would have a few horsepower at best. But even after this discussion, students still insist that "someone will figure something out." The laws of nature aren't relevant - "they" will of course solve it and make a solar car that goes 300 miles an hour. (In fact, they already have and are suppressing it). The students don't reason out of any understanding of physics or technology. When pressed, students essentially say that since we can imagine solar cars and they are neat, they "must" be possible. There's a similar touching belief in "air cars" beloved of science fiction - despite there being nothing remotely practical in this area. When I ask students why we don't have air cars, they typically say that that the "auto companies" don't want us to have them. No mention of the fact that there is no anti-gravity needed to make a silent, easily driven, Jetson's style machine. If I point this out, they are sure that "they" will discover a way to float air cars. It's not that we might discover something in the future - it's that it is impossible for us NOT to do so! This uncritical belief that anything is possible is why nobody seriously believes that energy will become scarce. Anything is possible, so it will happen. Energy might exist, so it will. If I note that oil reserves are dropping, students say that there could be undiscovered oil. That's enough for them - if we can imagine "oil not discovered", it must be there! Again, no knowledge of geology and physics goes into this argment - only a belief that anything is possible. Belief #4 - There is nothing outside human experience. Humanity is everything, and anything I hear about MUST have been caused by humans. If you believe that anything is possible, then the reason it hasn't happened yet is not any limits placed by Nature. Instead, any barriers, limits, boundaries to infinite personal freedom and power MUST be due to people. By extension, this means that people are responsible for everything that exists in the world. True, in the past people might have believed in "anything goes" reality. For example, many believed that immortal beings that could fly. But they would have thought they were a "supernatural" being outside of humanity. Today, people feel that immortality "must" be possible simply because I can think it. Therefore, it HAS happened, or is about to happen. The only reason it hasn't is due to humanity. Humanity is the only source of boundaries in the world. This idea has been greatly spurred along by advances in entertainment technology. Movies today have computer-generated characters, objects, and machines that defy physical reality. Advances in animation have allowed us to give these impossible creatures and devices disturbing aspects of realism. The trend is even stronger in videogames, which virtually everyone under age 35 plays today. Today, the typical teenager has replaced outdoors unstructured play with play in virtual worlds, obviously constructed by people. If you belive the videogame is "realistic" then stuff in the videogame could easily happen in our world. We see the ultimate fusion of virtual worlds, conspiracy, and a belief that anything is possible in "The Matrix" movies. As a result, adherents of the new religion reject the notion that any barrier to their wants (read consumerism) is due to outside forces. They can only be human-caused. Belief #5 - Since anything is possible, the only barriers are human will. So, if something has not happened that should, it is due to an evil "conspiracy" of humans. I recently saw this belief when I asked my students to weight the pros and cons of AIDs virus being created by the US military. I provided evidence from both sides - in particular recent discoveries of AIDs cases reported in the 1930s and 1940s from European sailors visiting West Africa. I asked the students to use the evidence to justify their position, pro or con. The result? Most completely ignored evidence both for and against. Instead, they assumed a conspiracy, and assumed that all the evidence I provided has been doctored. When they read about old AIDs cases from the 1930s and 1940s, they immediately postulated that the old cases were "planted" to support the conspiracy. When I noted that our ability to engineer viruses was primitive in the 1960s (when AIDs is supposed to have been created), the students immediately postulated that a "secret lab" stumbled on the techniques of advanced genetic manipulation. When I pointed out that plagues have attacked people for thousands of years, one student even suggested that this was "disinformation" - in other words, we were disease-free until the late 20th century. Only a very few students suggested rational ideas - e.g., that we should look closely at the RNA structure of AIDs for signs of manipulation, check published papers from the 1960s and 1970s, etc. and use this evidence to make a decision on the question. These students were the only ones who are not part of the new religion. The rest, like all zealots, ignored all the facts to support their belief: anything is possible, so AIDs MUST have been created. Since it is bad, it was created by evil people, since people are responsible for everything. This was not a hypothesis that could be falsified - it was religious certainty impervious to contrary information. Belief #5 - Everything was perfect until "they" took over In our culture today we have largely isolated ourselves from anything outside the human sphere. We no longer have the direct, daily contact with the natural world that our ancestors did. We have moved from being isolated from the harsh aspects of nature to believing that nothing happens outside the human sphere. I see this frequently when I ask students about the physical world - they're just as likely to believe that earthquakes are caused by someone with earthquake machines as that physical properties of the Earth cause them. In fact, the latter seems less likely to them - after all, they can imagine an earthquake machine, and they saw a movie with one once. Because people do admit that humanity had less power in the past, they accept that earthquake machines could not have existed long ago. But, instead of concluding that earthquakes may be natural, they apparently believe that there were no earthquakes back then. In fact, there is a widespread belief that nothing bad happened in the old days - simply because humans couldn't make bad things happen yet. As an example, I've described to students how we eradicated polio from the US in the 1950s and 1960s. Many students are surprised to discover that diseases existed back then! When asked, they apparently believe that the world used to be disease-free, and all our diseases today are caused by a "drug company" conspiracy..... So, there you have it - our new religion. This faith even includes local gods and goddesses who cannot be blasphemed - usually entertainment celebrities. People who have no problem mocking conventional religions bristle with anger if you attack a "fallen" celebrity like Kurt Cobain - a depressed musician who killed himself with self-destructive behavior. He cannot be bad-mouthed - it's not allowed... It's amazing what sacred cows entertainment celebrities have become - while some may be mocked, others (e.g. rapper Tupac) cannot be blasphemed under any circumstances. I suspect this results from the lack of physical religious artifacts in the conspiracy religion - one must have something tangible and "good" to worship. The unreal world of entertainment celebrities substitutes for the gods of the past. ========================== You might be amused by my final demonstration of the new religion, and the credulity of its followers. Last week, I told a class of students that the Atlantic is only 20 feet deep, London is 10 miles away from New York, and ocean liners run on metal tracks between the two cities. The reason? There's a conspiracy by the oil companies to keep plane tickets high - they just fly the planes around for several hours to burn up fuel on so-called "transatlantic" flights. The ocean is 20 feet deep because metal can't float - and the ships are made of metal. Ergo, the ships would sink except that they are on tracks on the ocean bottom. Within 20 minutes I had several students actually supplying "supporting evidence" for my concept- in particular, the idea that "they" want us to burn oil seemed like "proof" to them, as did their inability to reason out why metal ships do float. After about 30 minutes I stopped - I was worried that I had spawned a new cult! "

by **FourthBase** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 6:34 pm

That made me nauseous. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm not talking about rational inquiry into alternative causes, but uncritical belief.<hr></blockquote> Nope, he most certainly isn't. Doesn't stop him from lumping the rational inquiries in with the uncritical beliefs in order to besmirch conspiracy theories. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We have a new religion - but it is based on the behavior of powerful humans rather than unseen gods. These mysterious "evil" humans have corrupted an initially perfect world of the past for their own ends. Everything bad is caused by them.<hr></blockquote> Initially perfect...bullshit. Everything bad...bullshit. Otherwise, yeah, that's exactly how it is. Except it's not a religion. It's the truth, and it's documented. Conspiracy theory is a science based in facts. This son of a bitch ought to be tarred and feathered.

by **glooperoo** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:38 pm

You know what would be kind of neat: attempting to classify various conspiracy theories using a similar 2-D system that used for politics (for example, the Left vs Right on one axis and Authoritarian vs Libertain setup <a href="http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/uselection.php">commonly used</a>), except each conspiracy theory could maybe be judge on like a "supportive facts vs speculation" axis and a "commonly accepted vs common taboo/derision" axis. This could serve an invaluable service a showing that not conspiracy theories are the same, that not all publicly accept conspiracy theories are backed up by evidence (it would be hilarious seeing the "official 9/11 story" dot show up in the "publicly accepted, not backed by facts" quadrant <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> ), and that not all publicly unaccepted theories have no foundation in fact. This could also be a useful visual device for organizing and sifting through all the sub-theories surrounding something like 9/11, where individual factoids and speculations could be placed on the graph, (hopefully each of the dots could have a link to related-sources). So anyways, yeah, it would be a gross oversimplication of things, but still a lot better than the prevailing reality-regime of "all conspiracy theories are baseless conjecture that isn't worth a minute's worth of attention" that exists today. Plus, it would be oh so cute! I like charts <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **timboucher** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Except it's not a religion. It's the truth, and it's documented.<hr></blockquote> Ha, that's exactly what a Biblical literalist would say!

by **starroute** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:07 pm

He seems to define religion as "belief in a god" and then tries to equate conspiracy theory to that, with powerful human figures as a god-equivalent. But by considering conspiracy theory only in terms of the most primitive sky-fairy model of religion, he manages to insult and degrade not only conspiracy theory but religion as well. The funny part is that conspiracy theory often does grow out of what might be called religious beliefs: that the universe is meaningful, that things hang together, that there are larger patterns of events than what we observe on the day-to-day level, that humans have the ability to grasp those larger patterns, that there are connections and affinities at work which transcend ordinary linear causality, and so forth. That's real religion, as far as I'm concerned, and it has nothing to do with powerful, shadowy figures behind the curtain pulling all the strings. But mechanistic thinkers are never going to be capable of understanding that.

by **Qutb** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:39 pm

I don't think I agree though. Mostly because he seems to base the hypothesis on a caricature I have never encountered in real life ("they didn't know there used to be earthquakes in the past..."). I used to know a paranoid schizophrenic who thought there existed a vast conspiracy of psychiatrists who were out to get him, but even he would probably acknowledge the natural causes of earthquakes. I agree that some people have a penchant for attributing meaning or intent to random events and natural phenomena. If it's a substitute for religion, well, I don't think so really. I've read speculations that it may be a function of neurological differences, some se patterns where others don't. Sometimes the first group see patterns that aren't there, sometimes the second group don't see patterns that are there. Maybe there's something to that. Some people, for the life of them just can't connect dots. The core tenet of conspiracy theory is, I think, basically that the world looks significantly different from the summit of power than it does from the perspective of us "ordinary people". And as the distance between those at the summit and ordinary people is increasing, it is safe to assume that this discrepancy will increase as well (assuming there is one, which I do). I think a conspiratorial reality engenders conspiracy theory, so to speak, "conspiracy" being the wrong word in many ways. It is the nature of conspiracy that its details are unknown to those conspired against, who are left to theorize about its nature, scope and participants, consequentially many wrong dots get connected in the wrong way, and many dots get connected where there is no conspiracy at all. That being said, I would love to ditch the term "conspiracy theory" for what we are doing here at this board, as it really doesn't fit. We're doing parapolitical analysis, deep politics or whatever. I wish CT was reserved for things like "the Jews rule the world". But according to most educated and sophisticated people, we belong in the same category (sigh).

by **Rambuncle** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:12 am

Another one that stood out would have to be when he said some (most?) of the kids believed the world was disease-free in the past. How can anyone think that? I may be overestimating people, but I assume by college they would have learned something about disease in the past or maybe saw a movie set in the past that had someone die from disease or something. Even if people did believe that, how likely is it that multiple pople in the class believe it? He had someone interesting ideas about Moore's Law, but even there he goes quickly into hyperbole IMHO(I could be wrong, but most mainstream computer magazines have always discussed whether processor increases would slow down, which it seems they have). He makes it seem like their is a wide group of people that believe Really crazy things (earthquakes as mentioned above, for another example). If he was only highlighting how certain people can take it to the extreme, then he would have had a better article. Then again, maybe he did have that experience, and has run into many people that are willing to believe the Atlantic Ocean is 10 feet deep. In that case, we are in more trouble than I thought.

by **FourthBase** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Except it's not a religion. It's the truth, and it's documented. Ha, that's exactly what a Biblical literalist would say!<hr></blockquote> Ummm, yeah... Except that a Biblical literalist's documentation is a 2,000 year old fantasy created by a handful of manipulative schizos. Our documentation is reams of researched books and news articles from the last few decades, written by people who actually exist, about people that actually exist. We have a film of a bloody presidential coup d'etat. Where's their film of Jesus performing miracles? This is absurd, not worthy of discussion, IMO. Why didn't this writer compare other forms of political science to religion? Because he wanted to single out conspiracy theory for ridicule. And I agree that "conspiracy theory" is innately biased against us. The conspiracies are facts, only the who/how/why is a theory.

by **jenz** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:09 am

I thought this was inebriate anecdotal after-class rambling. Its no big deal that the average computer user, who doesn't give a ha'penny toss for discussions about ram cache or GHz, 'thinks' that computer speeds will accelerate indefinitely. He's already probably been sold several in succession with built in obsolesence - thanks silicon valley, microsoft et al. Its no big deal if someone 'thinks' that lightening strikes are the work of big brother. As all kinds of formerly natural unpleasantnesses, diseases, consciousness loss, temporary madness, have come into the experimental playground of covert armament designers, and there's a history of experimenting on unwilling subjects, a casual remark by a passing neighbour is hardly significant of religious tendency. people conspire to achieve an objective which excludes others - this is the reverse of open forum all inclusive negotiation. see tv shows about, say groups marooned on desert island who must throw one contestant out of the game at the end of the week, for object lesson in mankind's tendency to conspire to get an increase in individual benefit. I'd say, conspiracy was the more common way of reaching a result, in any situation you could name. In spite of his degree in Biology, I think he has religion arse about tit. I guess that as the weak naked ape, emerging mankind needed to co-operate to survive. co-operation = good (for species) selfishness = bad. throw in the need to explain natural phenomena, and to re-inforce good behaviour in the group through ritualised repetition and story telling and you've got religion. now we've still got the dichotomy in our individual natures and in our collective society - and some people fall further down one end of the behaviour continuum, some very far down there. power by its nature disempowers some other person or people, and grabs more for the individual than his fair share. its easier to do this by conspiracy than as a lone player. some of these power mongers, interestingly, use ritual to enforce their groupings. bonding is a natural human need - and now we can't cope with the idea of a world created in 7 days by a superman in the sky, religion is having a hard time. our society is more fragmented than ever, nuclear family is characterised by fission, no jobs for life, no-one stays put. as isolated individuals the majority become easy pickings for the organised controlling power groups. It goes without saying that this is a bad thing, by my definition of how we arrive at 'good' and 'bad'. the writer of the piece quoted by timboucher abuses meaning in lumping together a suspicion voiced by a woman in the street about natural phenomena, and say, the belief many hold that we were not immediately told the whole truth about Kennedy's death, or that the x files were squashed in the Dutroux 'investigation'. And if his students are so uneducated and credulous, he'd better reflect on his role as a teacher.

by **chillin** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:30 am

Somebody blew up the World Trade Centre, the US has been in 4 wars in the past 15 years. The official explanations for these events don't ring true to some, so we look for explantions that seem a little more probable. If conspiracy theories are more prevalent I think it's just a reflection of the lack of faith that people have with regards to the truthfulness of the government and media.

by **thrulookingglass** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:47 am

Uncritical thinking…anyone who is a conspiracy researcher is obviously exercising a vast amount of critical thinking. “widespread belief in often absurd "conspiracy theories" has sopped up people's religious impulses” – assuming people have religious impulses?! Notice, no effort is made to define exactly what is an “absurd conspiracy theory”, it’s immediately dismissed “absurd” the moment it comes to mention (talk about uncritical thinking). I think what might be a more apt description is that religion is a form of "conspiracy theory." “But, if the lightning bolts happened "for a reason" then religion is involved - there is a moral intent bound with the event.” – this is applying human emotion to a random event. There is no rational need to find meaning in this circumstance. “If not for the conspiracy, we would be in a Paradise. All bad things in the world were caused by humanity” – None who study “conspiracy theory” make such a broad statement. Of course, we are uncertain of what MAY/WILL occur if such conspiracies did not exist. None of us could project what might have taken place; say if Kennedy had not been shot dead in Dallas. It is doubtful that much would have changed had he remained alive. The Generals probably would’ve force a war in Indo-China jus the same. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was, after all, a manufactured event (yet another conspiracy “theory”). Again, this is just speculation, and we can speculate all we want. It doesn’t get us any closer to the truth. “Before humanity had godlike powers, everything was perfect.” I don’t know where to begin to dissect that one. Except for that saber-toothed tiger eyeing you’re toddler who has wondered away from the group?! Not exactly perfect. “But now we have moved to a new idea - Moore's Law is a rock-solid given and computer makers "must" continue to speed up computer because Moore's Law requires them to do so.” – “must”, gimme a break. This is a market driven force, if anything. A synthetic market driven force (influence by Military/Government forces and subsidies), if that. This is no different than car manufacturer’s producing re-designed versions of previous vehicles. And as our desktop computers get more and more powerful, how many of us are taking full advantage of “dual core Athlon 64’s” capabilities (gamer’s and video production specialist aside). We have more computing power on our desks than those who created the atomic bomb or landed men on the moon (or faked men landing on the moon ;o) ) ever dreamed of. “But are today's word processors and paint programs really 1000 times better than 1984?” – I think Moore’s law pertained only to CPU’s/Processors. If you want someone to blame for bad software…well my radar points to Mr. Gates and his “closed-source” philosophy. We don’t need to single out Moore’s law as an impetuous for ever increasing speed of computers, as I said, it’s a pseudo-market driven force. Is there any money in producing slower computers? “If we aren't richer this year, it must be a conspiracy.” Again, an assumption. More correctly, if we aren’t richer, it could/may be a conspiracy. I could go on, just some observations. There are too many interpretations of the term “conspiracy theory” as all of us here know. In the mass media, it is a dismissal, an immediate ostracism. In my view the problem is the extra wording, the term “theory” is meant to add ambiguity. Cognitive dissonance applies once again, “I don’t want to believe others are/could be conspiring against the greater populace or acting in interests that benefit their own interests.” Because, if you accept even some of this statement you are beginning to refute a “conspiracy theory” that has been ingrained in this if not all societies, that people always act altruistically.

by **jpuma** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:51 pm

you guys are a hoot, man-- such ruffled feathers over something that's no big deal. "anyone who is a conspiracy researcher is obviously exercising a vast amount of critical thinking." except when someone DARES to consider similarities between conspiracy theory and religion . . . . hilarious! more bile, please! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **lilorphant** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:18 pm

This assumes that there is an innate need for religion, a highly debatable assumption, as history tells a story of imposed beliefs, indoctrination, inquisition, and outright farce. If anything there may be an innate need to be accepted among peers, and high suggestability is one area he did not seem to consider.

by **thrulookingglass** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:50 pm

"you guys are a hoot, man-- such ruffled feathers over something that's no big deal. "anyone who is a conspiracy researcher is obviously exercising a vast amount of critical thinking." except when someone DARES to consider similarities between conspiracy theory and religion . . ." What I was speaking to regarding this statement was that most (a lot, if not all) of us here, or those who are regarded as "conspiracy theorists" tend to look for different impetus for worldly events than those given in conventional mass media sources. To exercise an opinion that is not commonplace or orthodox is to be (at least) more critical of the predominant views of the mass media/public. Moreover, there is an abundant amount of information available on the internet and elsewhere (National Archives?) that is compelling, concrete, and represents an axiomatic preponderance of information that would lead those who are driven to read and observe to the conclusion that conspiracy is not a "theory", but a practice. I was not offended by the post, nor did I mean to nash my teeth on the thread. I considered myself an atheist and don't consider religion to be a factor in researching history. I welcome the discussion, actually. I would consider science a religion much more than "conspiracy theory", whatever may be inferred by this term.

by **timboucher** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Except that a Biblical literalist's documentation is a 2,000 year old fantasy created by a handful of manipulative schizos. Our documentation is reams of researched books and news articles from the last few decades, written by people who actually exist, about people that actually exist. We have a film of a bloody presidential coup d'etat. Where's their film of Jesus performing miracles?<hr></blockquote> I know this is probably an unpopular opinion, but a lot of conspiracy theory IS a fantasy as well. Certainly not all of it, and I certainly don't consider all conspiracy theorists (myself included) to be schizos. But that said, there is TONS and TONS of zany off the wall totally screwed up thinking in conspiracy theory. And I know the first reaction to when people say that is always to dismiss the oddballs and the crackpots, and say "that's not what it's really all about though." But I personally think it's dishonest to claim that these people and thinking either don't exist or aren't representative. Because in one sense, they are. What conspiracy theory is based on is not always *facts* so much as it is *connections*... I'm as guilty of this (or more) than anyone, and that's what makes me comfortable in acknowledging that. Sometimes when I have a hunch that I want to follow up, I'll find ANY kind of crazy source that corroborates even just a small portion of it. Doesn't matter if it's fact or conjecture or something else entirely. As long as it lets me run with the idea. Could be a bit of a song lyric, or a movie, or a religious myth, or a current event, or similarity of names, a trail of money, or anything. It consists of small bits taken from here and there and woven into a coherent narrative. Protest as you might, I know I'm not alone in using this process to research this stuff either. In cultural studies, this process is called bricolage: <a href="http://www.bloomington.in.us/~okolicko/definitions.html">www.bloomington.in.us/~ok...tions.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>(French, 'doing odd jobs'). A characteristic (according to C. Levi-Strauss) of the early human mind, in contrast to modern scientific thinking. But bricolage is entirely rational (i.e. not pre-rational) in its own way. He introduced the term in The Savage Mind. A bricoleur is one who improvises and and uses any means or materials which happen to be lying around in order to tackle a task [...] In the making of myth, bricolage is the use of whatever happens to be 'lying around,' so that myth is both rational and improvisatory.<hr></blockquote> Wikipedia adds: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricoleur">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricoleur</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In cultural studies bricolage is used to mean the processes by which people acquire objects from across social divisions to create new cultural identities. In particular, it is a feature of subcultures such as, for example, the punk movement. Here, objects that possess one meaning (or no meaning) in the dominant culture are acquired and given a new, often subversive meaning. For example, the safety pin became a form of decoration in punk culture.<hr></blockquote> I'm not trying to say that there's anything wrong with this, but I do think that the similarity between this approach and mythical/religious thinking is not only unavoidable but very important. Going back to the quote that kickstarted this though: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>We have a film of a bloody presidential coup d'etat. Where's their film of Jesus performing miracles?<hr></blockquote> If you had a film of Jesus, would you believe it? What if it was a 2,000 year old film that had passed through generations of hands to get to you today for the express purpose of proving it to you? More than likely, you'd have exactly the same reaction as you do to the Bible - face it. Either that, or an elaborate conspiracy theory would be built around it to offer alternative explanations. And I think alternative explanations are great, and I think we should build them, but I think it's essential that we determine how much of what we're doing is journalism, and how much of it is myth, and is it possible or even advisable to try to separate the two?

Conspiracy Theory, Substitution for Religious Impulses?

Conspiracy Theory, Substitution for Religious Impulses?

Re: Conspiracy Theory, Substitution for Religious Impulses?

CT spectrum

Re:ligion

Re: For starters, this guy has no idea what religion is

Re: Interesting angle

Re: Interesting angle

Re: Interesting angle

drivel

even simpler than that...

Re: where to start...

a hoot!

religious impulses-

Re: religious impulses-

the jesus videos

Who is online