Domain relevant beliefs.
In a certain sense, someone's beliefs are only relevant to me in a certain context. I don't care if my pilot is a Christian, but if he's a flat Earther I'll question his suitability as a pilot (look up rhumb lines, the Mercator projection, and the shortest distance between two points on a map). The opposite goes for my neighbour - I'm more interested in his moral values than his physical beliefs about the makeup of the world.
And yet... at some point I do become concerned, not about any particular belief, but by the suite of beliefs. It's the point where beliefs become an identity rather than part of a rational approach to reality - and I'd prefer to have rational people around me.
Take the Conspiracy Theorists for example. Yes, I know this is a term invented by the CIA to discredit anybody who questions the narrative, but it nonetheless points towards a distinct psychology. There's a group of people who buy into conspiracy theories for the emotional validation they get from being 'woke' - but they never do anything about it, or apply an analytical approach. They believe all the nonsense in Ancient Aliens, regardless of how easily disprovable it is. They accept any and all claims about UFOs, and mistake hallucination for revelation. I point to these three specific things, because these are conspiracies I'm open to, and these morons muddy the waters.
When somebody incorporates a belief into their identity it shuts down reason, and if you disagree with them you become branded as an enemy heretic. In trying to protect their beliefs they'll lash out at you physically (possibly through violence, possibly through the legal system). When things devolve to this point, you have blind armies slamming against each other, both sides making scientific errors that justify the other side becoming more entrenched in their position, and nothing productive happens: just the Oranges versus the Greens, tearing apart Constantinople.
Let's say I do get a chance to talk to Owen, and explain as much of the stuff as I can (I don't claim to know everything, and am willing to admit when I don't know). Will he take in my information and consider it? Or will he accuse me of wizardry?
The latter possibility worries me on an existential level. How many humans are actually capable of reason?
In a certain sense, someone's beliefs are only relevant to me in a certain context. I don't care if my pilot is a Christian, but if he's a flat Earther I'll question his suitability as a pilot (look up rhumb lines, the Mercator projection, and the shortest distance between two points on a map). The opposite goes for my neighbour - I'm more interested in his moral values than his physical beliefs about the makeup of the world.
And yet... at some point I do become concerned, not about any particular belief, but by the suite of beliefs. It's the point where beliefs become an identity rather than part of a rational approach to reality - and I'd prefer to have rational people around me.
Take the Conspiracy Theorists for example. Yes, I know this is a term invented by the CIA to discredit anybody who questions the narrative, but it nonetheless points towards a distinct psychology. There's a group of people who buy into conspiracy theories for the emotional validation they get from being 'woke' - but they never do anything about it, or apply an analytical approach. They believe all the nonsense in Ancient Aliens, regardless of how easily disprovable it is. They accept any and all claims about UFOs, and mistake hallucination for revelation. I point to these three specific things, because these are conspiracies I'm open to, and these morons muddy the waters.
- The human genome is really weird, and human evolution is poorly understood - was there intervention at some point? Maybe - but all that crap about Egyptians having lightbulbs is pseudo-science.
- I strongly suspect that there is something going on with the UFO phenomenon beyond Big Fish stories; however, Roswell was obviously nothing more than a spy satellite - there are about a dozen other instances where FOIA requests and declassification have demonstrated that "UFOs" were mundane - but this doesn't stop the Conspiracy Theorists from continuing to cite these examples.
- I'm very open to the possibility of revelation and miracles, but I'm also aware that if I'm drunk or high or tired I might just be imagining it. These people take such comments as a personal insult.
When somebody incorporates a belief into their identity it shuts down reason, and if you disagree with them you become branded as an enemy heretic. In trying to protect their beliefs they'll lash out at you physically (possibly through violence, possibly through the legal system). When things devolve to this point, you have blind armies slamming against each other, both sides making scientific errors that justify the other side becoming more entrenched in their position, and nothing productive happens: just the Oranges versus the Greens, tearing apart Constantinople.
Let's say I do get a chance to talk to Owen, and explain as much of the stuff as I can (I don't claim to know everything, and am willing to admit when I don't know). Will he take in my information and consider it? Or will he accuse me of wizardry?
The latter possibility worries me on an existential level. How many humans are actually capable of reason?