The emotional roots of conspiratorial perceptions, system justification, and belief in the paranormal

As some of you may have gathered, I have some unusual interests.  In regards to people, on one end of the spectrum, there are individuals like Alex Jone; as a contrast, Steven L.Anderson comes too mind.  In the "events" or "things happening in the world  category", the so-called Truthers come to mind.  But yet the Sovereign Citizen Movement fascinates me.  For beliefs we have anything with a cultic group think, like Patriarchy and Quiverfull; but yet, at the other end are people who seem to think the Genesis 6 giants are real and still among us.

In essence, I am fascinated by what motivates people to buy into crazy worldviews. Is it a means of compensation for feeling powerless?  Is it a measure of self-worth, a meaning or purpose for life?  And one I didn't consider prior to reading the attached study, the need for order, or "structure".

So the Whitson et al. study shows,

This research has several important implications. First and foremost, our studies establish that external or world uncertainty can have the same effects as lacking control. This is critical to test and establish because uncertainty and lacking control are conceptually distinct and may, as a result, produce different effects. This research establishes that uncertainty and lacking control represent one broad construct that incites the need for structure. Furthermore, by using emotions which differ on uncertainty and valence, we are able to provide the first evidence that uncertainty alone is enough to drive compensatory control strategies, regardless of valence. Lastly, these experiments extend the literature on appraisal tendencies of emotions by establishing that emotions characterized by uncertainty appraisals don't simply lead to systematic processing. Rather, they lead to structure seeking.

What Whitson et al are saying, emotional uncertainty creates a need to compensate. Uncertainty in an emotional state – regardless of whether it is positive or negative – leads to a desire for structure and a sense of control.  So, in our attempt to achieve a sense of certainty, to make sense of things, a conspiratorial mind think or a harsh, punitive religions (like Patriarchy and Quiverfull) can become attached.

In other words, there is comfort in the conspiracy theory.  Seeing real or illusory patterns, provides an explanation for why things are the way they are. There is comfort in overbearing religious dogma or a tyrannical government, as both purport how things ought to be.  Mapping out our fates and providing predictable structure in our ever changing world.  As the authors put it,

“Whether one finds comfort in a strong government, astrological predictions, or vast conspiracies , all are responses potentially driven by the uncertain.”

Even without evidence, people faced with uncertainty or fear will gravitate move toward something that makes sense of things -- even if that something is harmful or makes no rational sense

The emotional roots of conspiratorial perceptions, system justification, and belief in the paranormal

ADDENDUM::What David Gushee’s change of heart really means | Denny Burk

So the other day I posted about David Gushee's defection in regards to the acceptance of LGBT individuals and Jonathan Merrit's reaction. There was one specific point that Merrit made that I keyed in on, that I also feel is important.

"While other pro-LGBT Christian activists — including Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network and Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian” — have been dismissed in some circles as wet-behind-the-ears youngsters without formal theological training, Gushee, 52, is a scholar with impeccable credentials. He can add intellectual heft to what has largely been a youth-led movement, and is not someone who can be easily dismissed."

But as I stated in the previous posting, not everyone agrees with the above characterization of Gushee's news. One such person is Denny Burk who writes:

This is actually backwards. Pro-gay revisionist readings of scripture have been around for decades, and they were pioneered by “Christian” scholars. Evangelical scholars have decisively answered those revisions going back at least three decades. The conversation among religious scholars has gone under the radar of the larger public, but it has been there. And all of those old arguments are now showing up in the work of popularizers like Matthew Vines and Justin Lee. This has not been a “youth-led” movement. It’s been a “youth-led” warming-over of discredited heresies. Gushee doesn’t add any scholarly gravitas. We’ve had scholars advocating this heresy for decades.

I get the feeling that Jonathan Merritt regards Gushee’s defection as some kind of bellwether for evangelical views on sexuality. If that is what he intends, I think he is mistaken. Gushee is not the future of evangelicalism. He is the future of ex-evangelicalism. He joins a chorus of others who have left the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and who no longer represent what evangelical Christianity is all about. Anyone who looks to figures like Gushee to understand evangelical piety and faith will be inevitably misled.

"Discredited heresies" and "ex-evangelicalism" interesting choice of words don't ya think?

What David Gushee’s change of heart really means | Denny Burk

Leading evangelical ethicist David Gushee is now pro-LGBT. Here's why it matters. - On Faith & Culture

The other day when I initially posted this story in one of the groups I follow, my reaction was, "This is huge!!" And it still is, in my mind anyways. You see, there is one specific point Merrit makes that I agree with,

"While other pro-LGBT Christian activists — including Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network and Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian” — have been dismissed in some circles as wet-behind-the-ears youngsters without formal theological training, Gushee, 52, is a scholar with impeccable credentials. He can add intellectual heft to what has largely been a youth-led movement, and is not someone who can be easily dismissed.**

I have been out of the faith for over 20 yrs now and to be honest the whole "gay christian" debate was over for me in my early 20s long before my de-conversion. It hasn't been till recently that it has emerged as a topic of interest where I was willing to put any energy or continual thought into the subject. Though as a non-believer it is more from a counter-apologetic POV and my views haven't changed all that much; maybe just a bit more nuanced when necessary.

That aside, I will very very curious as to Gushee's theological reasoning and how he supports it (I will be purchasing his book ASAP). In all actuality, if one studies the 6 standard clobber passages in the proper historical, cultural and sociological context, homosexuality as we know it the 21st century is not in the Bible. What is, cultic temple prostitution and worship of Ashteroth (OT) and Cybele (NT).

What the subject ultimately boils down to in regards to the Levitical passages, unless one accepts every OT law or prohibition and punishment as authoritative for Christians in the "leteral" (not a jot or tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law), manner in which it is written, what alternative hermeneutical principle is to be employed?


**This statement has its detractors, something I will hit in another post as it is an intriguing aside.

Leading evangelical ethicist David Gushee is now pro-LGBT. Here's why it matters. - On Faith & Culture

Is Religion Inherently Oppressive? | Alternet

There’s little doubt, outside circles filled with self-delusional reactionaries, that religion is probably the most important force in continuing the oppression of women worldwide. Around the world, various abuses from coerced marriage to domestic violence to restricting reproductive rights are all excused under the banner of religion. More to the point, women’s rights have advanced more quickly in societies that put religion on the backburner, or like the United States, have strict laws separating church and state. But even in the U.S., the main result of the growing power of the religious right is the rollback of reproductive rights and other protections for women’s equality.

Former president Jimmy Carter, who is probably the country’s most prominent liberal Christian, is willing to set aside his enthusiasm for faith to admit this. While doing press promoting his new book A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence and Power, Carter told the Guardian that “women are treated more equally in some countries that are atheistic or where governments are strictly separated from religion.”

This isn’t because atheists and secularists have fewer people in their ranks that have ugly and backwards attitudes toward women. It’s because, by never having religion in the discourse about women’s rights in the first place, discourse in secular circles and societies never gets mired in endless, irresolvable debates about what God wants. Instead, secular societies can get straight to the facts and policy debate. When you stop worrying what God wants and start worrying about what people want, it’s much easier to argue that women should have full human rights. After all, women are half the human race. When everyone is talking about what God supposedly wants, it becomes very easy to forget that ultimately, the issue of women’s rights is about ordinary, everyday men and women and what goes on in their lives.




Is Religion Inherently Oppressive? | Alternet

Why Does Religion Always Get a Free Ride? | Alternet

We try to persuade people out of ideas all the time. We try to persuade people that their ideas about science, politics, philosophy, art, medicine, and more, are wrong: that they're harmful, ridiculous, repulsive, or simply mistaken. But when it comes to religion, trying to persuade people out of their ideas is somehow seen as horribly rude at best, invasive and bigoted and intolerant at worst. Why? Why should religion be the exception?

[,,,]
In a free society, in the marketplace of ideas, we try to persuade people out of ideas all the time. We criticize ideas we disagree with; we question ideas we find puzzling; we excoriate ideas we find repugnant; we make fun of ideas we think are silly. And we think this is acceptable. In fact, we think it's positively good. We think this is how good ideas rise to the surface, and bad ideas get filtered out. We might have issues with exactly how this persuasion is carried out: is it done politely or rudely, reasonably or hysterically, did you really have to bring it up at Thanksgiving dinner, etc. But the basic idea of trying to convince other people that your ideas are right and theirs are wrong... this is not controversial.

[,,,]
And religion is a very specific kind of idea about the world. Religion is a truth claim. It's not a subjective matter of personal experience or opinion, like, "I'm a one-woman man," or "Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings." It is a statement about what is and is not literally true in the non-subjective world.

So if we think it's a mistaken idea, why shouldn't we try to convince other people of that?

[,,,]
But religion isn't the only idea whose adherents have historically been targeted with persecution. Political ideas certainly have been. To take an obvious example: Look at Communism. People who thought Communism was a good idea had their lives utterly destroyed. Even if they weren't actually trying to overthrow the government. Even if all they were doing was writing, or creating art, or gassing on in cafes with their friends. Even if they weren't really Communists. McCarthyism and other Red scares destroyed the lives of countless people who were simply suspected of being Communists. And like religious persecution, anti-Communist fervor has often been closely tied with nationalism, ethnic hostilities, and more. Immigrants from Eastern Europe, for instance, were often feared and despised as "dirty Commies," with the political hostility becoming inextricably tangled with the xenophobic nationalism, and each form of hostility feeding the other.

[,,,]
When we criticize religion -- just as when we criticize any other kind of idea -- we do need to make sure that criticism of the idea doesn't turn into persecution of its adherents. We need to draw a careful line between criticizing ideas and marginalizing people. We need to remember that people who disagree with us are still people, deserving of basic compassion and respect.

[,,,]
But if religious differences really are more likely to lead to bigotry, tribalism, violence, etc.... doesn't that show what a bad idea it is? If the ideas of religion are so poorly rooted in reality that there's no way to resolve differences other than forming battle lines and screaming or shooting across them... doesn't that strongly suggest that this is a truly crappy idea, and humanity should let go of it? Doesn't that suggest that persuading people out of it is a really good thing to do?


Why Does Religion Always Get a Free Ride? | Alternet

Actually, that's not in the Bible – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

The Bible may be the most revered book in America, but it’s also one of the most misquoted. Politicians, motivational speakers, coaches - all types of people  - quote passages that actually have no place in the Bible, religious scholars say.

[,,,]

But people rarely challenge them because biblical ignorance is so pervasive that it even reaches groups of people who should know better, says Steve Bouma-Prediger, a religion professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.


Actually, that's not in the Bible – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs