I was listening to a fascinating lecture on Therapeutic Apologetics by Dr. John Coe at Biola. The summary of the lecture is people either believe in something because of reason or emotions. This is my summary and does not do the philosophical, theological, or psychological explanations of Dr. Coe justice. He did not call them emotional baggage, although that is what I would call them, he called them causes.

People either have reasons or cause for the belief or unbelief in any particular thing. Most often it is a cause and not a reason. This is true for most people on most things. You can tell if someone holds a belief based on a cause and not reason by their avoidance or unwillingness to freely examine alternative explanations.

Here are a few definitions he gave. Wrap you mind around this!

Reasons for belief/disbelief
"(Q) is a reason for person (S) to belief that (P), when (Q) freely moves (S) mind to assent (P) and not based on prior psychological causes."

Causes of belief/disbelief
"When explanation for person (S) to believing (P) is due to some prior psychological experience resulting in desires and passions that then move the mind to assent, without reason or contrary to reason."

Dispositional knowledge
“Dispositional knowledge is suppressed knowledge that when given proper stimulus (S) will become consciously aware of (P).”

Reason gives us freedom and causes leave us in bondage to our psychological hang ups.

I would have said reason and emotion and not reason and causes are foundations of our belief or disbelief. Or I think you could say rational or irrational. Maybe that makes it to simplistic. This is one of those topics where you sort of understand the concept from a basic understanding but once you start digging into the complexities it seems to get deep fast.

I remember a few years back when a friend at work would passionately support the idea that there was a conspiracy behind the events of September 11. Even though I thought he was off-his-rocker, we had a number of impassioned conversations about the subject. The flaw I saw in his logic was the number of people needed to pull off such a stunt. It seemed to me at the time, and still does, that given the number of people needed to ‘cover-up’ this event, it is highly unlikely. I mean there was talk that workers came into the building and weakened the structure before the event and that the true planes were diverted to another airport and that the people are alive and living in secrecy.

I wish someone would come up with a formula or theorem for calculating the probability of a given conspiracy theory that takes into account the number of people required to keep a ‘conspiracy’ secret and the probability that someone would leak the information.

One of the allures of a conspiracy is that the lack of evidence becomes evidence for a cover-up. The problem is the lack of evidence is not evidence for anything, let alone a cover-up. The issue here is a good example of a prior bias. In other words, conspiracy supporters come in predisposed to believing there is a conspiracy and they see the lack of evidence as evidence for a cover-up. Those who tend to be more skeptical will, of course, come in with a bias of disbelief.

Some people will seemingly hold to the conspiracy no matter what evidence is presented to them. It may make sense to hold a position when there is no supporting evidence however, there is no logical reason to hold a position when there is evidence to the contrary, or the evidence to the contrary outweighs the evidence for.

In the same way, the skeptic needs only have one piece of evidence that there is no good answer to in order to reject the conspiracy. As Greg Kokul once said, “Just because it is possible to be mistaken about something that seems obvious doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to think we are. This is the skeptic’s error.”

If a conspiracy is true; and I believe there must be some that are; then what evidence will help us determine the validity of such claims. I think one way is to look at the probability. One thing to consider is the number of people involved in the cover-up. As the number involved in the cover-up grows, the likelihood that they will be able to keep it under wraps decreases. Another thing to consider is the resources need to pull off the conspiracy. This is why you often hear that some group of ultra-rich people is calling the shots. In order for some of these conspiracies to be true, you would have to have considerable resources. Who else but an ultra-rich and elite group would have such resources?

Assuming we have someone or some organization with the required resources, we still need to have a motive. Why did they want Kennedy dead? Why do they want to cover-up the UFO crash in Roswell? Why did they take down the World Trade Center? Even if someone had a motive, that does not mean they did it. Assuming they had a motive and opportunity (resources), it does not follow that they did whatever the conspiracy theory states. We still need some other type of evidence tying them to the act.

Assuming we can demonstrate the means, motive, and opportunity of a group of conspirators, can we show any other evidence of said conspiracy? We have to look at the conspiracy as a whole and try to determine the probability of such an event. At least, at this point, our belief, while not necessarily true, will at least be rational.

Bayesian Cognitive Science research is looking into questions like how much evidence to the contrary is needed for someone to move from their initial position to an opposing position. I think this research might have some promise on this front. Research has suggested that the brain may employ Bayesian inference, in other words the greater the number of evidences and the strength of those evidences leads to greater degrees of certainty. It seems it makes sense to go overboard on the evidence in order to convince the greatest number of people.

Of course, there is human emotion that brings in the irrational aspect that might just throw the potential conspiracy probability theorem out the door.

Post scriptum

As a side note, after I finished writing this post, I received the latest issue of Philosophia Christi (Vol. 13 Num. 2) and one of the articles caught my eye. Right away, I had to read John W. Montgomery’s article, “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion? Some Thoughts on Burden and Standard of Proof vis-a-vis Christian Commitment.” Although my post is about the requirement commitment to believe in a conspiracy, John Montgomery’s comments on burden and standard of proof are insightful and appropriate to my point. I have taken a number of his points and consolidated them into my topic of belief in conspiracies.

1. Dr. Montgomery points out then the burden of proof is on the believer to show that their belief is true and not on the unbeliever that the belief is not true. In the same way, I think the burden is on the conspiracy theorist to show the conspiracy is true and not on the skeptic to show the conspiracy is not true.

2. “Proof depends on probability – not on absolute certainty or on mere possibility.”[1] There is a spectrum for the standard of proof from possible to absolute certainty. For a court of law, the standard of proof does not use absolute certainty or mere possibility because absolute proof is impossible to obtain and anything is possible in our Universe. Just because something is possible it does not mean that it is also compelling.

Probability, in a United States court of law, has three levels; beyond reasonable doubt; clear, strong and cogent; and preponderance of evidence.

For the preponderance of evidence, you need only show the evidence for is more compelling than the evidence against. For moral certainty, we need to have no other reasonable explanation.

For conspiracies, it is unwise to ask for absolute proof or to give credence to mere possibilities. Instead, we must determine if we are comfortable with evidence beyond reasonable doubt or simply the preponderance of evidence.

[1] Montgomery, John W. “How Much Evidence to Justify Religious Conversion?” Philosophia Christi Vol. 13 No. 2 (2011): 449-460

I have recently noticed that some people, myself included, often have contradictory aspects to their worldviews. That is to say that when you look at their worldview as a whole, you will notice what may not be obvious close up, that aspects of their worldview contradict other aspects of their worldview. I guess some people have not taken the time to reflect on their worldview and how they apply it to various aspects of their life.

If they are aware of the contradictions, perhaps they balance these contradictory aspects in some sort of creative tension. Or, perhaps, they balance them by compartmentalizing different aspects of their life by creating artificial boundaries of reality. They may have one way of viewing the world at work, another at home, and still another with friends.

They have to do something or else suffer psychological discomfort form the ensuing cognitive dissonance.

For example, you will find some Christians who speak of hating the sin and loving the sinner. In practice, they shun people they feel are living in sin. I fail to see the love. Other times, you will find Liberal Christians complaining that the Conservative Christians are being intolerant. Not realizing they are being intolerant of the Conservative Christians.

By no means, is this limited to the halls of the cathedral. Secular humanists want their morality to be relative and their science to be objective. Often, they cling to untenable scientism. For the true relativist, scientific theories are neither true nor false. They see scientific theories as useful – agreed upon – stories or, at best, a description that helps. For the true naturalist, morals are objective. They are defined by genetic code and there is nothing relative about them.

It seems to me that people don’t think about how what they believe in one area of their life flows into all the other areas of their life. Instead, they go through the smorgasbord buffet of competing ideas, selecting what looks appetizing to them at the time. They assume their life is like a divided Chinet plate and that they can separate different aspects of their lives. They use this artificial compartmentalization to avoid the obvious and painful realization that they are living a contradiction. The reality is the gravy is going to get on your vegetables. In that case, pick the gravy that works with everything on the plate.

Your Emotions Can't Tell Time

The other day I was browsing Facebook when I noticed a suggested friend who was someone I went to school with long ago. The problem was this 'suggested friend' was a schoolmate who was a total jerk to me. I noticed very quickly I remembered what he said and did to me and I found myself upset and angry as if he had just done it or said it to me.

This is the problem with emotions. In order to trigger them, you just need to remember or think about something that made you feel that way once before. Then, bam! The emotions are back just like that. Even if, intellectually, you forgave the person or you now realize it was minor or long enough ago to not matter anymore.

After a few seconds, I realized that kids are mean and that what he said and did was mean, but it was over 20 years ago. Does it matter to me now? Not at all. However, emotions don't understand time they just react to what you are thinking.

You will find another example of this with actors. Good actors will draw on thoughts to create the emotions they need for the scene they are in. If they need anger, they will focus their thoughts on something that angers them and if they need to show love, they focus on thoughts of love.

I wonder if this means we can control our emotions based upon controlling our thoughts?

Here is a related quote:

“Words can never adequately convey the incredible impact of our attitudes toward life. The longer I live the more convinced I become that life is 10 percent what happens to us and 90 percent how we respond to it.” - Charles R. Swindoll

I have noticed that often people are their own worst enemies. People's lack of self awareness often leads to decisions that are detrimental to themselves. They don't realize that they, to some extent, have some control over their success or failure. I am not talking about 'name it and claim it' ideology. We don't control everything in our lives. However, it is true that showing up is half the game.    If you know your dispositions you can overcome them. Like Sun Tzu, who taught us, that we must know ourselves and our enemies, not that that would always give us victory but to give us victory more often.