Tag Archives: religion

The cult of conspiracy

I read this quote in Tim Ferriss’ 5-Bullet Friday email newsletter:

“I sometimes wonder whether conspiracy theories are an attempt to re-enchant the world in a distorted way. It’s like religion knocking on the door and trying to come back in a strange and distorted form. A sense of mystery beyond our own understanding of the world. If you ever talk to conspiracy theorists, that’s the sense you get from them. A sort of almost romantic sense of awe that there is this dark mysterious thing that a rational thing could never penetrate.” ~ Adam Curtis

Having a dad who was constantly making connections across seemingly unrelated topics, all for which he found resounding ‘evidence’ of conspiracies, this quote resonated with me. With an inclination towards conspiracy came a blind willingness to accept wild, unreliable sources of any information or claims that supported the conspiratorial narrative. Crazy, unsubstantiated theories were treated as fact.

Whenever I brought up counter arguments, and shared anything to suggest inaccuracies in a conspiracy I would get the same retort: “Who is fact checking the fact checkers, David?” Then Dad would send me an article, I’d click a link to some ‘fact’ that it mentions and it would lead to a warning page that I was going to a known Russian propaganda website. In all my years on the internet, I’d never been redirected to a page like this, except from the ‘reliable’ sources my dad followed.

“Dad, did you know the source of this information is a Russian propaganda website?”

“Even bad sources get the information right sometimes David.” This from a scientist, a man dedicated to research and detailed documentation. But the grasp of the conspiracy came from deep within, like a core faith, a religious grip that broke common sense,

A sort of almost romantic sense of awe that there is this dark mysterious thing that a rational thing could never penetrate.”

It’s not about rational thought, nor common sense. It’s a new, distorted form of religion. Faith does not require reason, it does not follow logic. But it holds on to people and steers them in directions they are unaware that they are going. 100 pieces of counter-evidence can go blindly by, and then a crumb of evidence in support will be enough to fuel the conspiracy and shield it against the next 100 counterpoints.

Conspiracies are mysterious, even romantic. The people who follow them bear witness, they see the light, they are the believers, the keepers of the faith, the chosen ones. Logic and reason do not alter the faith of the devout… and so the cult of conspiracy continues.

What I wouldn’t do

What would you do if you were a God? That’s a challenging question. An easier question is what wouldn’t you do?

Here is what I wouldn’t do:

  • I wouldn’t wait thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to present myself to my ‘subjects’. (Or I would wait longer so that my message could spread more easily, and in high definition.)
  • I wouldn’t root my religion in superstitions about the natural world.
  • I wouldn’t write my holy book with references to social norms and practices that will date themselves and become embarrassingly outdated.
  • I wouldn’t introduce my religion to only one geographical location and leave many others clueless to my existence. (If I did pick just one geographical location, I’d choose one where my subjects were the most literate and able to share my words more consistently and precisely.)
  • I wouldn’t punish my subjects for being unbelievers, I would let their good or bad actions be the measure of their right to eternal life after death.
  • I wouldn’t expect obedience, I could have created slaves rather than self-conscious beings if obedience was really important to me.
  • I wouldn’t want anyone to fight expansionist wars in my name. Why pit my subjects against each other? This seems a bit egotistical for a god!

I’m not wise enough to list all the things I would do, without contradicting myself or being in some way myopic, selfish, or egotistical… that said, I could probably get together with a team of thoughtful people and improve on any and all holy texts. It would take equal or less effort compared to the apologists who defend and justify the contradictions in these texts, rather than admitting that a wise and benevolent God would never had allowed such poorly written scriptures to be written either by Him or in His name.

I have not yet seen a scripture or text written to this day that I believe a benevolent and loving God would have written. But there are many holy texts that such a kind and worthy-of-worship God would never have written.

Alien perspective

I think jokes like this are funny:

…because they hold a bit of truth.

We aren’t all that intelligent.

We draw imaginary lines on the globe to separate us. We fight wars in the name of angry Gods that are more concerned with our devotion than for peace and love. We care more about greed than about the environment. We spend more on weapons of destruction than we do on feeding the needy. We judge each other on superficial differences. We have unbelievable intellect, capable of incredible technological advancement, yet we let our monkey brains prevail.

Sure we exhibit some intelligence, we are intelligent viruses.

At least that’s what I think an objective alien visiting our planet would think.

Conversation on an alien ship observing earth:

“Give them another 100 years… if they figure out how to not kill each other and the planet, then let’s introduce ourselves.”

Right now I’m not terribly optimistic about what those aliens will find in our future? ‘Civilized’ humans? A desolate planet? Artificial intelligence treating us like we treat ‘unintelligent’ animals? Or more of the same bickering, posturing, warring, and separatist views of humans trying to usurp dominance over each other?

It would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

Going Meta

If I was going to give this post a subtitle it would be, ‘How do you know that you’re smart enough to know the difference?’

Just to be clear, I’m delusional. But guess what… so are you. The world we live in and the world we think we live in are two different things. We don’t see the world as it is, we see it as our senses are capable of seeing it. Then we go further and apply our individual perspective to add meaning to what we observe.

I say think of a dog, and I guarantee you that you aren’t thinking of the same dog I am. Not the same kind, not the same size, probably not the same disposition… which might be different in our perception even if we were thinking of the same dog.

So we live lives of illusion and delusion, except most of our delusions are close enough to each other’s that we don’t think of each other as crazy… Most delusions. Although, maybe less of them than at any time in recent history. Because now more than ever people seem to be seeing the world in vastly different ways.

So what can we personally do? We need to get meta. We need to think about our thinking. We have to start from honest awareness and seek to debunk ourselves, to figure out how we are deceiving ourselves. We have to see the frame we put around things. Observe ourselves, (the observer).

This meta self reflection is most important when we talk to someone with a different perspective or world view. It’s so easy to see the bias of others, and much harder to see our own. Yet this self reflection is essential.

A wonderful example of this is looking at the growth in numbers of people who think the world is flat. It flabbergasts me to think that this number is actually getting larger. How is that possible? Flat world views. That is to say, people are asking one question, looking from one central position: ‘Show me the curve… I’m on earth and I can’t see it. You must be delusional and gullible to believe it’s round, when you can’t see it.’

Only then, and from that biased position, can someone make jumps to conclusions like NASA is trying to fool us, and the conspiracy to fool us is suddenly everywhere. Then evidence that fits this world view suddenly starts to appear. Except it doesn’t.

No, what actually happens is that these flat mindsets start to create excuses for everything that doesn’t fit this world view. Never mind that civilizations like the Mayans, 4,000 years ago, understood the movement of the stars and probably already knew the earth was round. Never mind the view of earth from the Apollo moon missions. Never mind simple science experiments that have been around for hundreds of years proving the earth is round.

All that said, the flat earthers start with an observation, or lack of observation of a curve. They are using their senses, that are basing the criteria on their view of the world… their delusion.

That’s an easy example, because there is a lot of evidence debunking a flat earth. But there are a lot of topics where one perspective isn’t so clearly wrong. There are arguments on different sides of the political spectrum, different sides of a global conflict, and different sides of hot topics where the perspective someone, the perspective you, take is not necessarily the clearest. Suddenly our delusion is potentially working against us.

If we aren’t willing to go meta and really look at where our view is coming from, we are susceptible to flat world views. We can get stuck in a single delusional frame of mind where we don’t see what’s really happening, what a better perspective might be. And so just like the flat earther, we only see the issue from a perspective that we can observe, but isn’t correct.

The irony is that the more humble you are, the more likely you are to be able to go meta and see other possible perspectives. It seems that being humble is a key ingredient, because a lot of smart people struggle with this. Religion, politics, and culture all seem to undermine intelligence, and smart people get lost in dogma. Even scientists can do this. It’s not about how smart you are, it’s about how humble you are.

Are you willing to recognize other views? Are you able to let go your ego and really observe an issue from a different perspective? Are you willing to change your mind? Ironically if the answer is yes, you probably don’t need to get meta as often as others. It’s still useful to do though, both to solidify your own view, and to change your mind.

Broken models

Here are two things that are broken and need fixing. Neither of them have an easy fix. Neither of them will be fixed any time soon. I don’t pretend to have answers. I don’t know who has answers or if they can be solved in my lifetime?

1. The shareholder model of ownership. When companies act on behalf of shareholders they do not act on behalf of customers or employees. The shareholder only cares about profit and gains, and those come at the expense of workers and end-users.

2. Religious zealots. Every religion has good people of faith who live good lives and are sincerely wonderful people. But that doesn’t make all religions equal. Some religions allow for the truly faithful, those following the faith devoutly, to do bad things in the name of God. That’s a broken system. It has removed the purpose of the faith away from the benefit of humanity.

Both systems are entrenched in tradition. Both models create bad incentives that do not serve the public good. Both of these will outlive me. Again, I don’t have answers. I just know that the models are broken.

We aren’t getting rid of shareholders, we aren’t getting rid of religion. How do we reduce the bad incentives? How do you tell a shareholder that their returns should be lower so that employees are better paid, or consumers should get a more affordable price at their expense? How do you tell a person willing to martyr themselves for the glory of God, and their righteous place in heaven, that they should be kind to everyone regardless of faith while they are here on earth?

Again, I don’t know? What I do know is that greed and blind faith are evil, broken parts of systems that need to change. Because everyone suffers in a world where these broken models continue.

Geology, Astrology, and Prophecy

There are some major geological disturbances and volcano eruptions in Italy, Japan, and at any moment potentially Iceland. We live on a volatile planet with harsh weather conditions, earthquakes, and occasionally tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. Right now there is a lot of geologic activity. This happens in cycles, and it seems that we are on a very active cycle right now. That’s geology. That’s science.

What it’s not is ‘the end of times’, it’s not the end of the world as we know it as a human race, although it may feel like so to anyone living near one of these eruptions. And I don’t mean to downplay worst case scenarios. One of the volcanoes in Italy that is active is what’s known as a super volcano, like the one under Yellowstone National Park. A large eruption of a super volcano can devastate vast areas of land and upset the weather of the world for years.

It could get really ugly.

But this isn’t some biblical prophecy. It’s not an angry God upset with the failings of humanity, and it’s not the coming of the apocalypse.

It’s science. It’s Mother Earth doing what Mother Earth has done for millions of years. It’s cyclical, but on a geological scale that spans chunks of time that extend far longer than civilizations tend to survive.

Tying these geological events to ancient scripture is like tying your dating life to tarot cards, or waiting for the alignment of stars to make a career move… foolish. The earth isn’t angry, it’s seismically active. It isn’t punishing mankind, it is going through natural processes.

We build houses and cities on flood plains, and in tornado zones, and on the sides, and potential lava flows, of volcanoes. If harsh weather systems or major geological disturbances happen in these danger zones, it is disruptive to the lives of those living close by. If a super volcano erupts the whole world could be affected. Again, that’s science.

This could end up being a series of small eruptions, and it could be a massive global disruption… What it’s not is written in scriptures, holy texts, or the result of the alignment of stars. I’d hope that we have evolved past superstitious caveman and can recognize the difference.

The enemy of knowledge

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” ~ Stephen Hawking

The illusion of knowledge is more ignorant that just being ignorant. This idea is more relevant today than any time in history. Examples:

1. Every religion starts with the premise that their religion shares true knowledge and all the other religions share illusions. So every devout religious person loves their own illusions, or at the very least believes anyone of a different faith lives in an illusion of ignorance.

2. Anyone who believes in a flat earth, or thinks no one ever landed on the moon lives in an illusion of knowledge. They perceive themselves as more knowledgeable than scientists, experts, and even general employees in the flight and space industry.

3. AI is already generating incredibly persuasive deep fakes and while we used to use a discerning eye to catch a lie, soon we will need to be more discerning to catch the truth. The illusion of knowledge will be more rampant than actual, factual knowledge.

We are moving from an era of knowledge seekers to an era of illusions and ignorance.

The truth is out there… it’s just a lot harder to find, and even harder to defend.

One world under God

Imagine a world where everyone who prayed believed that no matter what religion anyone practiced, that the higher being they prey to is The Creator. Can an all powerful God not manifest Him/Her/Itself in many ways to many peoples? Does this God need to share their understanding with every tribe, in every language, and in every culture identically? Would that even make sense?

If there is One God then could we not see the Good in all holy texts, and recognize our similarities? Recognize the kindness to strangers all these books profess? Recognize that living a spiritual life means spreading love and kindness rather than raising arms against our brothers, sisters, and other children of the same God?

If The Creator is the same creator, no matter the religion, then why would we be fighting? It can not be in God’s name. So it must be a weakness of our species that creates the hatred. It is the territorial animal in us that overpowers our humanity.

A spiritual, kind, and loving being does not attack fellow beings; does not send their children to war; does not treat children as pawns or collateral. Since religions can not bring our world together I have to wonder what can? What can bring our people, all of our tribes together?

I want to believe that we can see ourselves as a species that is kind. I want to believe that we can see ourselves as a species that is loving. I want to believe that we can see ourselves as a species that is peaceful. I want to believe that humanity is more powerful than our animal instincts and that we are wise enough to solve our problems without the need to kill our neighbours, here on this planet with so-called ‘intelligent’ life… that one God created.

The inhumanity

Today there was more strife in the Middle East. Innocent lives lost in the Gaza Strip. Two warring sides with no foreseeable compromise. No peace to be found. More bloodshed to come.

I’ll never understand man’s inhumanity to man, and can’t get over the fact that for Gaza, and many other zones of conflict, both sides think they are fighting in service of God. Really? A benevolent god or a tyrant? How many must die to appease this ‘heavenly’ being? What’s the finally tally going to be?

We are at an impasse. We need to decide if it matters whether we are religious beings or spiritual beings. We have to decide if being a good person means following a faith blindly or believing we are all one species that needs to coexist? We need to choose between being spiritual and ‘humanly’ connected or being segregated by angry Gods who demand selfish obedience. Because these selfish gods are inhumane… and I for one want to see us coexist as a species that is more concerned with being peaceful and loving than a colonies of ants fighting over territory.

Are we really just animals fighting for dominance and territory or are we self aware beings that are seeking rich and fulfilling lives? It’s our actions and not our words that reveal the answer to this question… and right now, I don’t think our actions reveal the answer I’d hope for.

Reasons and reasoning

This is a humorous ‘contrived platitude’ that I shared on Facebook 8 years ago. It came up as a memory and I wanted to share it again:

Things definitely do not always happen for a reason, but we are reason makers and sometimes we seek meaning where there is none. Belief systems are designed around the justification of reasons, around faith as opposed to evidence. So are things like tarot card readings, conspiracy theories, superstitious habits, and lucky charms and rituals. Truth is bent, patterns are found where there are no patterns, and narratives are created to justify and satisfy, and even ‘prove’ that coincidences are actually consequences and that reasons are founded in good reasoning.

Sometimes these fabricated reasons help us. “Everything happens for a reason” can help soften an unexpected tragedy… help us find meaning in a meaningless loss of health, life, or limb. We can muster strength and purpose in times of hardship. But other times it’s nothing more than ignorance. People follow doctrines and justify their beliefs even when they are harmful to others. This is somehow done in the name of love. “We are looking out for what’s best for you, for us, for our community”… A fabricated reason. A justification. A delusion.

There is a big difference between finding a reason and good reasoning. That doesn’t mean that seeking out a reason for something is necessarily bad, it just means that sometimes the reasons you think are important or useful may not be so. It’s easy for us to rationalize anything to fit our belief system, but if that’s what we are doing we really aren’t being rational… we are rationalizing not reasoning. There is a difference between making sense of the world and making things up to make sense of the world; a deference between making up reasons and using good reasoning skills. True wisdom is knowing the difference.