Critiquing: #053 — US politics, conspiracy theories, and prophecy

February 18, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Conspiracy theories — US church support — Failed prophecies — Vaccine skepticism — Media neutrality

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	D	The episode discusses complex and contentious topics like conspiracy theories and political support for Trump without adequately verifying the information presented. Many statements lack empirical support, making it difficult to assess their accuracy.
Degree of Coherence	C-	The episode attempts to link various topics such as conspiracy theories, prophecy, and political events but often fails to maintain a clear, logical flow. The connections between different points are sometimes tenuous and lack coherent transitions.
Absence of Fallacies	D+	Logical fallacies such as hasty generalizations, strawman arguments, and appeals to authority are present. For example, broad claims about Christians’ susceptibility to conspiracy theories are not supported by comprehensive evidence.
Degree of Evidence	D	The episode relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal opinions rather than robust, verifiable data. The lack of credible sources and empirical evidence to substantiate the claims made weakens the overall argument.
Degree of Testability	D	Many assertions, especially those related to prophecy and the psychological inclinations of religious groups, are not easily testable. The subjective nature of these claims makes it difficult to evaluate their validity.
Rational Confidence	D+	The confidence expressed in the episode does not correspond to the level of evidence provided. Assertions are often made with unwarranted certainty, leading to overgeneralizations and potentially misleading conclusions.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Accuracy

The episode discusses various conspiracy theories and their prevalence among certain groups without providing sufficient factual evidence to support these claims. For instance, the assertion that “some Christians are more prone to believing conspiracy theories” lacks empirical backing.

“There are some Christians who are more prone to believing conspiracy theories because we are told that God will reveal things to us.”

The accuracy of such statements is questionable without data to support the claim. Studies on belief in conspiracy theories show a complex interplay of factors, including psychological, social, and cultural influences. Religious belief may intersect with these factors, but it is not the sole determinant.

2. Absence of Fallacies

There are instances of logical fallacies, such as hasty generalizations and appeal to authority, where broad conclusions are drawn from limited data. For example, the statement about the relationship between Christian faith and susceptibility to conspiracy theories is not substantiated with adequate data.

“Christians have always tried to say, well actually we’re one nation under God, and then there’s a debate about prayer in schools and all that sort of thing.”

This statement implies a monolithic Christian perspective that does not account for the diversity of beliefs and practices within Christianity. It also assumes that religious motivations are the primary drivers behind political actions, which oversimplifies the complex motivations of individuals and groups.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Christianity and Conspiracy Theories

Premises:

1. Some Christians believe that God reveals hidden truths to them.
2. Conspiracy theories claim to reveal hidden truths.
3. Therefore, some Christians are prone to believing conspiracy theories.

Hidden Premises:

1. Belief in divine revelation directly influences susceptibility to conspiracy theories.
2. Conspiracy theories and divine revelations are perceived similarly by believers.

Counter-Argument:
This argument fails to consider the diversity within Christian beliefs and the individual critical thinking abilities of Christians. Not all Christians interpret their faith as revealing hidden truths applicable to conspiracy theories. Furthermore, belief in conspiracy theories is influenced by numerous factors beyond religious belief, such as education, socio-political context, and personal psychology. Empirical research shows that cognitive biases, social isolation, and a lack of trust in institutions play significant roles in the acceptance of conspiracy theories. Therefore, attributing this tendency primarily to religious belief oversimplifies a multifaceted issue.

---

Argument 2: Media Neutrality and Bias

Premises:

1. Media outlets select stories and spins based on their agendas.
2. Therefore, media neutrality is a myth.

Hidden Premises:

1. All media outlets have significant biases that affect their reporting.
2. Bias in media is inherently detrimental to neutrality.

Counter-Argument:
While it is true that media outlets may have biases, it is an overgeneralization to claim that media neutrality is entirely a myth. Many media organizations strive for journalistic integrity and adhere to ethical standards aimed at minimizing bias. The diversity of media sources allows for a broader perspective, and responsible media consumption involves critical evaluation of multiple sources. It is also important to distinguish between bias and outright falsehood; biased reporting can still present factual information, albeit from a particular perspective. Encouraging media literacy and critical thinking is essential in navigating media bias.

◉ Addressing Argument #1:

The Link Between Unsubstantiated Beliefs and Conspiratorial Thinking

Important terms: core ideology, substantiation, conspiracies, epistemological standard, rational belief, evidence, intrinsically gullible

In examining the tendency to fall for conspiracies, it is crucial to consider the foundational beliefs that shape one’s worldview. When your core ideology is based on assertions for which you do not demand substantiation, you become more susceptible to conspiracies that are filled with the same type of unsubstantiated claims. This essay explores how certain religious beliefs, particularly within Christianity, parallel conspiratorial thinking and make individuals more prone to accepting conspiracy theories.

The Role of Core Ideology in Belief Systems

A core ideology built on unverified claims can create a mental framework where skepticism is minimized, and acceptance is maximized. For many Christians, faith involves accepting certain truths without requiring empirical substantiation. These truths are often based on religious texts, traditions, and personal experiences that are not subject to the same scrutiny as scientific or rational evidence.

Rejection of Rational Belief Standards

Christians often reject the epistemological standard that rational belief should map to the degree of the relevant evidence. Instead, they may accept beliefs based on faith, which requires a different type of justification. This reliance on faith over empirical evidence can create a cognitive environment where unverified claims are more readily accepted. Consequently, this can lead to a greater openness to conspiratorial thinking, which similarly relies on claims that lack rigorous evidence.

Parallels Between Faith and Conspiratorial Thinking

Several parallels exist between faith-based belief systems and conspiratorial thinking:

1. Acceptance of Unseen Forces: Both faith and conspiracies often involve belief in unseen forces or entities. For example, in Christianity, the belief in God and angels parallels the belief in shadowy figures or secret organizations in many conspiracy theories.
2. Suspicion of Mainstream Narratives: Just as some religious believers may distrust mainstream scientific explanations in favor of divine explanations, conspiracy theorists often reject official accounts and propose alternative narratives.
3. Community and Identity: Both religious and conspiratorial beliefs can foster a strong sense of community and identity. Believers in a conspiracy may find solace and solidarity in a group that shares their views, similar to how religious communities provide a sense of belonging.
4. Resistant to Contradictory Evidence: Both faith and conspiracy theories can be resistant to contradictory evidence. Believers may dismiss or rationalize away evidence that challenges their views, reinforcing their existing beliefs.
5. End-Times and Catastrophes: Apocalyptic thinking is common in both religious and conspiratorial contexts. Predictions of end-times or catastrophic events can reinforce a narrative of urgency and existential threat, compelling believers to hold onto their convictions more tightly.

Conclusion

When the foundational beliefs of an individual or group are rooted in unverified assertions, there is a heightened vulnerability to conspiracies that mirror this lack of empirical support. Christians, by rejecting the epistemological standard that rational belief should map to the degree of the relevant evidence, may be more intrinsically gullible and open to accepting conspiratorial thinking. Understanding these parallels can help in addressing the cognitive mechanisms that underlie susceptibility to both faith-based and conspiratorial beliefs.

---

We welcome your thoughts and perspectives on this topic. Please feel free to share your comments and engage in further discussion below!