Basing
an understanding of the world on faith alone without a solid
foundation on reason leads to conspiracy thinking. People who perceive reality through the lens
of faith alone naturally come to different conclusions about the way the world
works than do people who ground their understanding on empirical evidence and
logical argument illuminated and guided by faith.
 |
| You know there's a conspiracy because you don't know about it. |
There
may be conspiracies, even widespread conspiracies. Often what is
construed as a conspiracy, however, is nothing more than individuals or groups acting
in conformity with principles or a system that the observer does not
understand, or that are based on premises the observer rejects as valid.
Dislodging
ideas from the mind of someone operating from a conspiracy mindset is virtually
impossible. This is because, coming from
a position based on faith instead of reason,
anyone attempting to debate or argue is inevitably put into the position of
having to prove that something is not the way the conspiracy theorist insists
it must be. This is arguing unfairly, as honest argument can only result from
common principles.
Since
this is a demand to prove a negative (which is impossible), the conspiracy theorist is confirmed
in his or her opinion that anyone holding a
contrary position is, ipso facto, a
liar, a dupe, or a deceiver. All
evidence or argument that calls one’s beliefs or theory into question is
dismissed or ignored. As physicist
Richard Phillips Feynman (1918-1988) noted,
 |
| "I'm not joking . . . and don't call me Shirley!" |
“Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. .
. . It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment,
you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only
what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your
results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they
have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the
best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to
explain it. If you make a theory, for
example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the
facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to
make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits,
that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for
the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right,
in addition.
“In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information
that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.” (Richard P.
Feynman, “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” Adventures of a Curious Character, As Told to Ralph
Leighton.
New York: Bantam Books, 1989, 311-312.)
 |
| A scholarly theological debate. |
Consciously
or not, especially in academia and the church world,
many people in non-leadership or key positions feel constrained to tell others
what they think those others want to hear.
They are not free to seek truth, because what passes for truth in that
particular milieu has already been determined and accepted on faith, not reason. If anyone breaks ranks, he or she faces
ostracism or worse. Contradictions are
ignored or suppressed, sometimes violently. Empirical evidence and logical
argument are denigrated, attacked, rejected, or simply ignored.
Nevertheless,
strength or force of belief does not mean that something is right, correct, or
true. This is in spite of the sincerity
and fervor, even devotion with which people may adhere to their will-based
religious opinions. Unfounded faith cannot turn wrong
into right, or falsehood into truth. As
Feynman closed his essay,
So I have just one wish for you — the good luck to be somewhere
where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and
where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the
organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. (Feynman, “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”, op. cit., 316-317.)
Somehow, Mr. Feynman, we don’t think you were joking.
#30#