The Nature of Agnosticism: Part 4.4

The last few posts have been comprised of longer explanations of the dynamics of religious belief. This post will be much briefer, serving more as an appendix. It contains additional features I've found relevant but do not warrant a full length post, mainly because I have better things to do. All of these are considered to be mechanisms that contribute to the persistence of belief in monotheistic religions but they can also be applicable to anything considered a belief system proper. Contrary to religious apologists, belief is not simply a decision. Belief seems to be an emergent phenomenon arising from a complex interaction of cultural, lifestyle, and experiential factors. I am not going account for the formation of these systems, rather I will just explain more features that contribute to the positive feedback loop dynamics maintaining belief. Along the way, we will encounter more bad apologetics that frequently arise.

Taking Credit

This might not seem like an obvious causal factor that contributes to the persistence of belief at first glance. However, when we take a second look, we can see that religious institutions either shift the blame when encountered with objections to the effects of their belief system, or take as much credit as possible for historical contingencies we find to be exemplars of some virtuous concept. The result is simple: "We are responsible for all of the good and none of the bad". Consider a somewhat comical example. In the video Taking Credit for Feminism in Islam, an Ex Muslim dissects the arguments presented by a Muslim apologist claiming that principles of Feminism derive from Islam. Given what we know of the subjugation of women in Muslim majority countries, why would someone even try to defend such a ridiculous claim? It's pretty straight forward. Many people see the liberation of women as incompatible with principles concerning women found in the Quran. Apologists seek to reconcile this obvious incompatibility by "taking credit" for the philosophical foundation of Feminism. They argue that liberal ideas are actually "rooted" in Islamic scripture by referencing vague passages that might support their claims. Simultaneously, they disregard passages that are blatantly opposed to liberal principles. Consider Surah An-Nisa 4:34, sahih al bukhari book 54 hadith number 460, and quran 2 282; quite extraordinary to think we can't simply look up verses that obviously contradict the argument. Muslims, like Christians, have plenty of responses to this foolishness. They might say that "you need Muslim eyes to know the truth of that verse" or the very famous "You are taking that out of context!!!". Given the historical trajectory of women's liberation, I wonder who is actually the one taking verses out of context.

This happens all the time in Christianity as well. Consider the historical revisionist movement emphasizing the narrative that the United States is a "Judeo Christian Nation". Proponents will try to argue that the constitution itself was crafted by Christians who inserted "Judeo Christian" values into the document. They will claim that "the founders were Christians, therefore this is a Christian nation". We must ask ourselves, what are their objectives for doing this? By bolstering the relevance of the Bible, they are arguing that all things good about our country can be attributed to Christianity. Pair this with a moral panic, and we can observe people flocking back to the church. But do their assertions hold ground? Two books I recommend are The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American and Inventing a Christian America : the myth of the religious founding for deep expositions into this "debate". Without reading any books, familiarity with the Bible should put this to rest. Consider Deuteronomy 23:2, does the American Judicial system punish anyone's descendants? How about Mark 4:10-12 NIV, does the idea of "secret knowledge" coincide with an open society? How about another one; 2 Kings 2:23-24, doesn't the First Amendment give us the right to offend? This one was quite ridiculous: genesis 38:7-10 NIV, do we have any societal obligations to sleep with our brothers widowed wife? What the actual hell is Judges 19-21, A Levite and His Concubine. Or how about thought crimes: Matthew 5:28. Does the American judicial system convict people of having thoughts? You really can just take your pick, the Bible is full of shit like this. But maybe I am just cherry-picking. Perhaps we can consult the fundamental tenants of Christian doctrine and compare those to our constitution. This is where we can clearly see the most fundamental biblical themes are broadly inconsistent with constitutional principles.

Punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge: it is not a sin to gain knowledge. This is a virtue. Self-actualizing by education is an American tenant.
God punished their descendants forever. Punishing other people who were not involved in the action is un-American. It is incompatible with out conception of justice.
Punishing forever: there is no finite crime deserving infinite punishment. Even our incarceration system understands this.
Atonement for sins (substitutionary atonement): we can forgo the punishment if we just kill someone else. This is known as vicarious redemption and is entirely at odds with individualism and the notion of personal responsibility.
Book of Job. In the US constitution I seem to remember the right to protest perceived unjust authority.
Thou Shalt Not Covet: Our constitution seems to unequivocally contradict this principle. Our system allows for the proliferation of free market principles which depend upon its negation.
The ten commandments explicitly enforce suppression of "blasphemy", this is obviously at odds with the "Harm Principle" assumed in the first amendment.
Our constitution allows us to construct "graven images", and is prevented from punishing people for such expression. You can mock any person you please.
The commandments state we MUST worship a specific deity, as zealously as possible. The constitution says we can choose to worship or not worship any deity at all. The government is completely restricted from doing otherwise.
The commandments demand you respect your parents, no matter how abusive they may be. Our constitution protects the right to disrespect and in many cases will intervene if there is abuse.
The constitution restricts authorities from silencing the press and stopping you from protesting. Biblical principles are diametrically opposed to this.
Cruel and unusual punishment is incompatible with the notion of Hell and punishing descendants "to the tenth generation".
The United States played a significant role in the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. Constitution contains several provisions that protect human rights. These protections are primarily enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and in subsequent amendments and interpretations by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Bible makes absolutely no effort to defend or support any notion of human rights and has been antithetical in many cases to secular governments establishing basic rights.
The concept of "Divine Judgment" is Un-American. God is the law-maker AND the judge. However, the US judicial system is separate from the legislative branch, for reasons such as impartiality. "Divine Justice" means everything is consolidated under a supreme dictator, something fundamentally at odds with American jurisprudence. One is totalitarian, the other stresses the division of power and checks & balances.

I mean really I could go on and on it's kind of a joke. Detractors will ignore all of this by claiming the US Declaration of Independence references a "Creator", citing this as evidence the founders intended this to be a Christian Nation. Seems rather vague to me; if I were a founding father with that intention why not just cut the bullshit and put "Yahweh" or "Jesus". Even if we grant this as evidence, it should be obvious that it's explicitly understating the total evidence. In the same sentence we see "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness", an explicitly Epicurean notion, written by Thomas Jefferson, the Diest who constructed the "Jefferson Bible", which had removed all reference to miracles and supernatural events. Pursuing happiness was never explicitly endorsed by any Christian denomination. I won't fully flesh out this argument here, but Jesus explicitly teaches self denial. This is obviously not unique to Christianity. We can see this practiced by cultures everywhere from Diogenes to the Buddha. But this is extremely at odds with the consumerism entailed by Capitalism.

What should be clear is simple: The United States Constitution is in absolutely no way, founded on "biblical principles". Our government is modeled off of ancient Rome and ancient Greece; the pagans. These were the enemies of Christianity.

In both examples, we see a strong tendency to take credit for perceived goods. What does this do? By ignoring the role they have played in blocking progressive social movements and overemphasizing any possible positive contributions, religious people distort the actual breadth, scope, responsibility and impact of their ideologies. They distort evidence by framing themselves as sole proprietors of "the good", influencing people who are already somewhat inclined (for various reasons) to consider the basic propositions of the religion. Functionally, this method acts as a foot in the door technique. This is precisely what marketers do to distort their products. Like massive firms marketing their products, they construct "counter-narrative" spin in attempts to contradict anyone who identifies the bullshit for what it is. Another technique is to play the victim. This is perhaps the most common technique. Whenever anyone refutes their baseless assertions, they claim they are being persecuted. I will speak more on that in the next section. For now, it's just important to understand the persuasive function of distorting evidence to retain and gain believers. You might have already encountered something like this when dealing with evangelists. They might have engaged you by finding commonalities, dropping hints that the Church also resonates with these shared views. They might do something nice, creating a Ben Franklin Effect, ever so slightly priming you for the ultimate endgame: the Jesus Smuggle. They use the grand "Judeo Christian" narrative to soften the actual history of religious belief.

As mentioned, criticisms are typically downplayed, explained away, or outright dismissed entirely. Consider the unanimous agreeance among biblical scholars that the Bible condones, and in many cases, outright approves of slavery. There are many apologetic responses to this. One such is that the Bible refers to "servitude" when speaking of slavery. So here we see in action, underplaying the extent of damage. There are many examples that show intra-denominational competition; downplaying or ignoring the issues in one denomination while highlighting it in another to sow distrust in the others theology. Consider all of the Catholic abuse scandals. Within Protestant circles, this is just demonstrable proof that Catholicism is false. Yet, they fail to acknowledge the same harm occurring in the Southern Baptist Convention. Many Protestants are simply unaware of the SBC scandal. For those who are aware, there is the typical "No True Christian" explanation. It is ironic that religious organizations who emphasize responsibility will never hold themselves accountable for the behaviors and actions that derive from their pernicious theology. As with taking credit, downplaying is a classic tactic used by apologists to retain believers. It's a very frequent method used in marketing, advertising, and PR to avoid accountability and minimize damage to their brand. It's quite fascinating to see how religious institutions utilize the same techniques used by the Tobacco industry to obfuscate the public dialogue around damages. I'll list just a few psychological tactics designed to manipulate public perception, reduce the perceived severity of issues, and maintain a positive image of a product or company and how they are present in religious apologetics. They leverage cognitive biases, emotional responses, and social influences to obscure problems and influence public opinion surrounding their image:

Framing: Positive Framing - Presenting information in a way that emphasizes positive aspects and downplays negative aspects. For example, focusing on the benefits and innovation of a product while minimizing discussions of its risks. Comparative Framing - Comparing the issue to something worse or less acceptable to make it seem relatively minor. For instance, comparing a product's minor flaw to a much larger issue faced by a competitor. I've already covered a few examples of this.
Repetition: Mere Exposure Effect - Repeating positive messages about the product to increase familiarity and perceived truthfulness, making negative aspects seem less significant by comparison. This should be obvious. Religious music achieves this through rote memorization of basic creeds.
Selective Attention and Information Control: Highlighting Inconsequential Details - Drawing attention to minor, irrelevant details to distract from more significant issues. This can be done through lengthy explanations that bury the problematic aspects. Information Overload - Providing excessive amounts of information, making it difficult for the audience to discern what is important, effectively burying the critical issues. For the equivalent logical fallacy, see Gish Gallop. Providing extensive theological or doctrinal information to overshadow any negative issues.
Appealing to Emotions: Fear Appeals - Highlighting potential losses or negative outcomes if the product is not used, which can overshadow existing problems with the product. Appealing to Positive Emotions - Using heartwarming or feel-good stories that create positive associations with the product, making the audience less likely to focus on its negative aspects. This should be even more obvious. They might emphasize consequences of leaving the faith or criticizing the institution to instill fear and discourage dissent. This will use uplifting stories and testimonials to create positive associations and overshadow any negative aspects.
Creating Doubt: Manufacturing Uncertainty - Using scientific ambiguity and contradictory evidence to create doubt about the severity of the issue, similar to the tactics used by the tobacco industry regarding the health impacts of smoking. They will do this to undermine competitors to their worldview. "Teach the controversy" is a great example of this. Questioning Credibility - Casting doubt on the sources of negative information, suggesting that critics are biased or unreliable. A corollary to this would be reverting to conspiracy. Critics are part of a plot to undermine the worldview, most likely orchestrated by the Devil. This also occurs when people leave "the faith", saying they "just wanted to sin".
Authority and Credibility: Expert Endorsements - Leveraging endorsements from perceived authorities or experts to lend credibility to the product and its safety, overshadowing any concerns. In this case, they tend to be pseudo-experts. Third-Party Validation - Using research or endorsements from seemingly independent organizations that are actually funded or influenced by the company. This happens very frequently with institutions such as the Discovery Institute, who actually have a mission statement to undermine trust in our academic institutions.
Normative Social Influence: Bandwagon Effect - Suggesting that many people use and trust the product, leveraging social proof to diminish the significance of any issues. This one is huge, since many religious people tend not to migrate to ideologically diverse regions. Furthermore, there is an implicit argument that "Christianity Works", whatever that means, pointing to positive cases while ignoring negative instances of toxic belief. This is a form of Survivorship Bias.
Linguistic Techniques: Euphemisms and Soft Language - Using less severe language to describe the problem (e.g., "challenge" instead of "crisis"). Deflection and Redirection - Redirecting conversations to less controversial topics or deflecting blame onto external factors.
Cognitive Dissonance: Creating Cognitive Dissonance - Encouraging consumers to focus on their positive experiences with the product, which makes it psychologically uncomfortable to acknowledge and accept negative information about it. Offering Solutions - When problems are acknowledged, immediately offering solutions or improvements to reduce the cognitive dissonance and reassure the audience. This is a huge factor, arguably the most important. Religions create pseudo-problems and offer solutions they can only provide. This creates a sense of dependency. More on that later.
Scarcity and Urgency: Limited-Time Offers - Creating a sense of urgency or scarcity to push immediate purchase decisions, which can distract from potential issues with the product. You might have heard this before. "You must decide now!!!" Exclusivity- Promoting the product as exclusive or rare, making it more desirable and overshadowing its problems. Christianity is guilty of this when claiming it's doctrines to be unique, while ignoring the entire history of syncretism between itself and adjacent cultures, philosophies, and religious themes.
Consensus Building: Astroturfing - Creating fake grassroots support or consensus around the product, making it appear more widely accepted and trusted than it actually is. Public Opinion Shaping - Using surveys, polls, and market research selectively published to show broad public support or satisfaction. This one is not quite as obvious, but is used quite often when "notable people" convert or have something positive to say about the religion.
Denial and Minimization: Outright Denial - Denying the existence of any issues, often coupled with discrediting those who raise concerns. Minimization - Acknowledging the issue but portraying it as minor or not significant enough to warrant concern. I spoke about these above, but this is a very frequent tactic used by ideologically driven groups.
Engineering Consent: Creating Illusions of Choice - Offering choices that all lead to a desired outcome, making the public feel they have control while steering them away from the problematic aspects. This one is used during childhood indoctrination. It's quite hilarious when I see people "choose" the religion, when they were pretty much determined to accept it from childhood by their developmental context. Staged Events - Orchestrating events or demonstrations that create a false narrative or positive image to distract from the issues. This one occurs very frequently in staged "healings" or "exorcisms", but also in other mundane instances of "feeling gods presence" in group prayer. A more pernicious example might be when youth group leaders hire "atheists" to come speak to young children. They create a strawman of Atheism or other belief systems to "prove" to uncritical minds that "they have the correct belief system".
Transfer: Associating the product with symbols, values, or people that carry positive connotations, thus transferring those positive feelings to the product. We have literally just observed this during our culture wars when Trump released the Bible that contained the US constitution. Religious institutions are quite good at this tactic. Anything perceived positively is associated with a Cross.
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD): Spreading Doubt - Suggesting that the criticisms or problems might not be true or are exaggerated, thereby creating doubt and confusion. Fear-Mongering - Highlighting unrelated fears to distract from the actual issues, making the public more concerned about other potential risks. These are incredibly useful tools. For some odd reason, religious conservatives might just be the most susceptible group to fear mongering I've ever witnessed. All you need to do is spook them a bit, invoke the Devil, and watch the chaos ensue.
Normalizing the Issue: Presenting the problem as a common or inevitable part of the industry, implying that it is not worth worrying about because it is a standard issue faced by all companies. You see this with the apologetic tactic that "everyone practiced slavery". Another time this arises is when someone says invokes a sort of skeptical theism to dismiss criticism. Presenting problems as common or inevitable parts of religious life, implying that they are not worth worrying about. Repeatedly exposing followers to issues in a way that makes them become used to it, reducing its impact over time.
Red Herring Diversion: Introducing irrelevant issues or creating new controversies to divert attention away from the primary problem.
Straw Man: Misrepresenting the criticisms or concerns about the product to make them easier to dismiss or refute. Can't tell you how often I see this when apologists engage in "debate".
Social Proof: Using testimonials, user reviews, and social media influencers to create a perception that "everyone" supports the product, thereby encouraging others to follow suit. This is literally what "witnessing" and "testimony" are within the context of Christianity.
Peer Pressure: Suggesting that not using the product or believing the criticism makes one an outsider or less informed.
Confusion Techniques: Jargon and Complexity - Using complex terminology and jargon to explain away issues, making it difficult for the average person to understand the problem fully. Apologists frequently do this with their word games. Contradictory Information - Providing conflicting information to create confusion, making it harder for people to discern the truth. Again, apologists frequently do this. Most notably when they cite some out of date study, cherry picked to create a sense of doubt.
Minimization and Justification: Trivializing the Issue - Portraying the problem as insignificant or blown out of proportion by the media or critics. Rationalization - Justifying the issue as a necessary trade-off for other benefits, making it seem acceptable or inevitable. I see these occur very often in the context of biblical inerrancy.
Scapegoating: Blaming external factors or third parties for the problem, deflecting responsibility from the company or product.
Inoculation: Preemptive Acknowledgment - Admitting to a small part of the problem in a controlled manner before critics do, which can make subsequent criticisms seem less impactful. Framing the Opposition - Presenting critics as having ulterior motives, such as being financially motivated or ideologically driven, to discredit their arguments.
Controlled Opposition: Co-opting Dissent - Supporting controlled opposition groups that appear independent but are actually funded or influenced by the company, thereby managing the discourse around the issue.

There are many more. I am sure there are entire books written on this topic, but for now we will move on.

Persecution complex, Martyr Complex, and Savior Complex

Initially, I didn't think this was much of a contributing factor to the persistence of belief. I figured it was more of a byproduct than a causal factor. Once I started investigating the social dynamics, it became obvious that these mechanisms can explain the persistence of many types of belief. Martyrdom is central to Christianity; not only in the thematic concepts within the narrative but also in the actual practice of the religion. To be a martyr is the ultimate goal; it shows your ultimate commitment to Jesus. There is a constant emphasis that the "apostles died for their faith", somehow "proving" that every claim in the bible is correct. I touched on this in another blog post so I am not going to address the implicit argument here. Rather, I want to discuss the effects of holding to this sort of belief. Persecution and savior complex are inherently tied up with this concept of martyrdom. Lets begin by analyzing how central it is to Christian belief with a couple of Bible verses:

Matthew 5:10-12: Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Luke 6:22-23: Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
2 Timothy 3:12: Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
1 John 3:12-14: Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
Revelation 2:10: Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.
2 Timothy 4:6-8: For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
Philippians 1:21: For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.
Romans 8:35-37: Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.
John 15:18-20: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
Matthew 16:24-25: Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.

The crazy thing is that these are just a few examples. This sort of language is littered all over the New Testament. Central to the Christian identity is persecution and martyrdom. These can easily be understood as saying "If you are being persecuted, then you are doing it correctly", "If you have not been persecuted, then you are no Christian", and "If you are martyred, then you will be exalted". Very simple rules of thumb that explain all sorts of odd behavior such as resistance to rational dialogue, extreme defensiveness, and a culture of fear mongering. The Mel Gibson episode of South Park really parodies this phenomenon; totally recommend watching it. Extreme cases aside, this persecution complex manifest very frequently and has an interesting effect on the believer.

Consider the case of the flat earth or any other conspiracy. The group psychology is remarkably similar to the persecution complex embodied by many Christians. The fact that the rest of the world disagrees with them, serves as validation that they are correct. The very existence of people disagreeing with them reaffirms their belief, because built into many conspiracies is the claim or assumption that "they have actually discovered the truth, and the powers of the world are trying to suppress reality". The very act of refuting their claims is interpreted as evidence that their views are correct. This is identical to Christianity, given the bible verses above. A social identity forms; "we have the truth and everyone else is out to get us". This is strongly reaffirming.. Flat Earthers will come together and hold conventions, reaffirming their belief that the scientific "establishment" is deliberately trying to undermine the actual truth. Christians come together and reaffirm themselves every week that they "have the truth" and everyone else is sinful, evil, and foolish. Anyone questioning anything about the religion automatically serves to reinforce their belief in it because literally built in to the religion are clauses like the ones above that effectively act as barriers preventing any criticism from entering. "The more we are persecuted for our truth, the more we know we have it".

This is but one method designed to create a closed, self-reinforcing system that discourages critical thinking and ensures loyalty to the group. These create a sense of urgency or imminent threat that reinforces dependence on the group. High-control groups use various psychological and social methods to reaffirm beliefs among their adherents. These tactics are also typically seen in conspiratorial groups. One of them is this Us-vs-Them Mentality; Promoting the idea that the group is special, chosen, or superior to outsiders while instilling fear of persecution or harm from the outside world, suggesting that non-members are enemies or threats. They might achieve this through Information Control; censorship of external sources of information and promoting only the group's materials while encouraging or mandating the consumption of specific content, like books, videos, and teachings, that reinforce the group's beliefs. This is normally coupled with Doctrinal Rigidity; enforcing a strict interpretation of beliefs and discouraging or punishing deviations and presenting the group's teachings as the ultimate truth, often with a black-and-white worldview. This leads to the proliferation of Induced Phobias; Instilling irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning its beliefs, such as fear of damnation, disaster, or social ostracism; creating a sense of urgency or imminent threat that reinforces dependence on the group.

How does this show up in real life and what are the consequences for believers? Media and Political Narratives tend to emphasize stories of anti-Christian bias and discrimination, often framing them as part of a broader culture war. This narrative can be used to mobilize political and social support, portraying Christians as defenders of traditional values under attack. This sense of distrust towards everything else tends to reaffirm their beliefs. The belief system is embedded within this larger institutional context in which biblical verses like the ones mentioned above can be exploited to create a sense of irrational fear and panic. Consider the ridiculous satanic panic, McCarthyism, and Salem Witch Trials as canonical examples. There is an unintuitive pleasure people get when playing the victim. However, this can truly distort clear thinking. There are Psychological Effects that emerge as a consequence of this persecution narrative such as: heightened anxiety and fear. Belief in being persecuted can lead to chronic anxiety and fear about future harm or discrimination, distorting your view of reality (and obviously, looking to seek a Savior). Paranoia will tend to manifest. Individuals may become overly suspicious of others, believing that they are constantly being watched, judged, or targeted. There might be a victim mentality; A strong sense of victimhood can develop, where individuals see themselves as perpetual victims of injustice, usually at the hands of their perceived out-group (in our modern times, "secular wordly" people). All of this will lead to reduced critical thinking; Constantly feeling persecuted can lead to a defensive mindset that discourages open-mindedness and critical thinking. People might double down on the narrative, seeing critical thought as something dangerous.

There are social degradations that occur as a consequence of the narrative as well. One is Group Cohesion: A persecution complex can strengthen in-group bonds as members rally together against a perceived common enemy. Constructive dialogue becomes impossible at this point. Discussion is seen as an existential threat. Isolation and fragmentation can occur. Individuals may withdraw from broader society, avoiding interactions with those perceived as hostile or untrustworthy. Aggressive advocacy might become inevitable. Individuals may become more vocal and confrontational in defending their beliefs, sometimes leading to social conflicts. All of this results in increased polarization. The persecution complex can deepen divides between different social, religious, or political groups, fostering an "us vs. them" mentality.

This can result in some pretty odd and counterproductive behavior. For example, there can be an overinterpretation of events: Individuals might interpret benign actions or events as deliberate attacks or signs of persecution. For example, interpreting a neutral policy change as a direct assault on their faith. They might place an overemphasis on symbols and rituals: There might be an exaggerated focus on religious symbols, rituals, and practices as a way of affirming identity and resisting perceived external threats. The reactionary right is particularly keen in doing this. They might engage in frequent legal battles or protests over perceived infringements on their rights, even in cases where there may not be a substantial threat. A great example of this is the Kim Davis incident. If you're not familiar with that I suggest looking it up. Believers may be more susceptible to conspiracy theories that align with their sense of persecution, such as believing in widespread secret plots against their group, relying only on information sources that confirm their beliefs about being persecuted, leading to an echo chamber effect. All of this can lead to aspiring the idea of being a martyr, viewing suffering or opposition as validation of their beliefs; or doing something extreme.

Bible verses like the ones I mentioned above can lead to a doubling-down effect where someone becomes even more entrenched and dogmatic in their belief. It is a self-preserving mechanism that can be observed in many religions, conspiracy theories, political ideologies, and cults. True Christian belief seems to entail, in part, believing that you are persecuted, hated, or targeted. This could lead to a peculiar sense of paranoia that causes people to only resonate with members of their in-group and confirm their preexisting dogma. If you believe that the existence of disagreement, is evidence of the truth of your claims, then you've created an unbreakable feedback loop that reaffirms your existing bias; in many cases strengthening it. I included Savior Complex in this section because there seems to be a chronological sequence leading from persecution to martyrdom then finally the savior. It's a consistent script acted out by Christians world-wide especially when they feel panicked. They tend to look for a strong-man type figure who can come in and make things better. If you think about "The Fall" narrative, this manifests itself very frequently in the context of US culture. To understand the Christian is to understand the biblical scripts they act out and superimpose onto reality. Conservative Christians have this vision of when the country was better. We currently live in a "fallen" or subpar state relative to some idealized time in the past. In comes some savior who purports to hold "Christian Values", promising to return us to the "better" past state. The "Make America Great Again" campaign is truly genius. It exploits the common "Fall" narrative, repurposes that scheme, juxtaposing it on top of current events, creating a need for some savior to bring us back to the Garden of Eden. In this "fallen" world, enemies of the Faith are persecuting believers and promulgating evils. The Christian is in an existential battle. Priests and Pastors are being martyred by the evil media. The common Christian is being persecuted. We need a savior now. Quite a sophisticated campaign when we begin to analyze it in terms of biblical themes and specific passages that resonate with common tropes believed by adherents to the faith. A key theme to understand is the persecution theme.

I’ve said this before, the ontological status of evidence matters; what we count as evidence for a proposition or theory matters. A single piece of evidence can support multiple hypotheses. This is known, which is why we need to use Bayes theorem to assess the expectation of seeing some piece of evidence, given some hypothesis. We then compare the posterior assessments, given our likelihood and priors. But the question of what evidence is still matters. Evidence becomes such, when it is relevant to a hypothesis. In terms of theory construction, we might say that X would be evidence for some theory. Facts are not evidence. They must become evidence through a chain of relevance making.

In the theist atheist debate, why is it that theists think certain facts are evidence for theism? And that this evidence unilaterally supports theism, and no other possible hypothesis? Because they have been trained, by the totalizing world view, to identify everything as evidence for theism. Take a simple case, original sin. I truly don’t understand why anyone would think this tale of the apple could be possible. Many understand the story seems ludicrous, so they respond by saying “well don’t you believe that people do bad things???? Do you think people are perfect????” As if the existence of moral deviation cannot be explained with other theories, or even needs explaining at all. The fact of moral ambiguity, in their eyes, unilaterally points to their guiding narrative. The only possibility is that the event happened.

Why is this the case? Well in totalizing world view cults they are literally taught, to explain all things according to the world view, no matter how incompatible it is with facts, evidence, or other established theories. They revise their understanding of everything else, in accordance with their loyalty to the world view. Sin must exist, because every other explanation of bad behavior is ungodly, or inspired by the devil. The very fact that opponents deny sin exists proves they are sinners, because only a sinner would deny sin. They might try and say, “well you have a world view too” and assume that the two must be equal in validity. The problem is, non-theism is not a world view, it’s a collection of ever evolving perspectives that are revised according to reason and evidence. Evidence becomes evidence through a process of legitimization; it needs to be established as such. When someone rejects the story of sin, this reaffirms the totalizing world view, because one manipulation tactic used by high control groups is to reinterpret dissent as evidence for their view.

Professor Matt McCormick illustrates this in his blog Begging the Question: Miracles and Nature:

There are a great many people who want to give God credit for the order, beauty, and balance of nature. Recent versions of the design argument and so-called fine tuning arguments, for instance, present the claim that were it not for the actions of God, we would not find a universe full of matter that abides by a set of physical laws. And if it were not for God, we would not expect to find the universe so finely tuned to be hospitable to life. But we do find a lawful universe that is hospitable to life, so there must be a God.
Now consider the wide array of arguments that would have us believe in the existence of God on the basis of miracles. In the past, there occurred events that were bona fide violations of the laws of nature: Jesus walked on water, Jesus was resurrected from the dead, the sick were healed, the hungry were fed. And it is on the basis of reports of these events that millions if not billions of people have come to believe that Jesus was really the son of God and that God exists. After all, only God could have been responsible for such acts.
But there’s a real problem here with these two approaches to believing in God. You can’t have it both ways. It is a manifest incompatibility to argue for God’s existence based on the orderliness, lawfulness, and regularity of matter on the one hand, and also argue that God’s existence is proven by miracles. In design and fine tuning arguments, God gets credit for all the daily non-miraculous occurrences in nature. The fact that there are regular laws of nature that perfectly predict the behavior of matter is taken to show that God exerts his power against the intrinsic lawlessness of the world (see if you can make sense of that notion on its own). The uniformity of physics is contrasted to the way that things could be or would be on their own: unlawful. But when miracles are employed to prove the existence of God, then an unlawful event is taken to show God’s existence in contrast to the way that things would have otherwise been without God’s intervention: lawful.
So it would appear that no matter what happens, miracle or not, God will be credited. But this kind of double-dealing makes a sham of the pretense at proving God’s existence from any independent grounds. The circularity of this brand of theism is painfully clear. It would seem that God’s existence is indefeasible. You can’t only allow the evidence to support your conclusion without allowing for the possibility that the evidence could disprove it. Otherwise, we can’t make any sense of what it is for evidence to support. The conclusion—God exists—is inescapable because it’s already been decided before the evidence was ever consulted. When all possible evidence is claimed in its favor, then the evidence isn’t really playing any role in the argument. When nature is orderly, that can only be because of God’s power. And when nature is violated, that can also only be because of God’s power. But if no possible states of affairs can fail to support the conclusion, then they weren’t really giving us independent grounds at all. Ordinarily, if we think that the evidence supports a conclusion, then we think that if that evidence had not been the case, then the conclusion wouldn’t have followed. If the defendant hadn’t been recorded by the security camera shooting the clerk in the gas station, and if he hadn’t been seen by a dozen witnesses who identified him leaving the scene, then we wouldn’t have as strong a case for his guilt.
So the believer is cheating when they maintains that a) the orderliness of nature couldn’t have come about by chance, only God could have done it, and b) there really have been miracles, therefore God exists. Both of these arguments are only a pretense at being reasonable when in fact there are no occurrences that they wouldn’t take to prove God. That’s not proving anything, that’s just finding the conclusion that you planted there in the first place. The evidence never mattered to them at all.

Another way of thinking about this type of self-propagating mechanism, is described brilliantly by theramintrees:

Say we define pixies as invisible beings that open all the flower petals. When we see flowers opening their petals, is that then evidence of pixies? No. We’ve started out with an unfalsifiable assumption: that the process of opening petals requires an external supernatural agent to make it work. These kinds of assumptions were widespread among our ancestors, who believed that everything from thunder to the motion of astronomical bodies had to be driven by various supernatural agents to make them work..... I have to believe in gods first, then I’ll see them? Wrong. I speak from experience. I used to believe without reservation. Never saw a god. What I did was take experiences that I found rewarding or punishing, or seemed improbable or inexplicable, and attributed them with divine significance. That’s not seeing a god. That’s defining pixies — defining a supernatural agent as the cause of these experiences, then taking those experiences as evidence of that supernatural agent. It’s a system perfectly designed to reinforce unjustified beliefs.

This type of reasoning is crucial for understanding how to belief system persists. It is a perfect system for insulating yourself from conflicting evidence. Everything unilaterally points to the predetermined conclusion. The Persecution Complex is a function of various epistemic traps that reinforce adherence to the belief by invoking some of our most primal instincts: fear, dread, and anxiety.

Anyway, I've posted some more resources below. A key thing to remember is that martyrdom is very important to a Christian. They need to believe that all of the apostles and major church figures were martyred for their faith; this is a crucial reinforcing factor because many hold the assumption "dying for your faith is good and the best indication of your true belief, and hence your salvation". There are some videos that question these factual assertions.

More Sources:

Gaslighting and Shame

Gaslighting is a psychological manipulation tactic where someone causes another person to doubt their own perceptions, memories, or sanity. The term originates from the 1938 play "Gas Light," and its subsequent film adaptations, where a husband manipulates his wife into believing she's losing her mind by subtly altering her environment and insisting that she is mistaken or remembering things incorrectly. There are some common indications of gaslighting including:

Denial of Reality: The gaslighter denies facts, even when there is evidence, making the victim question their perception.
Trivializing Feelings: The gaslighter dismisses or belittles the victim's feelings, making them feel invalid or overreactive.
Withholding Information: The gaslighter withholds important information or withholds affection as a form of punishment.
Lying or Distortion: The gaslighter lies or distorts the truth to make the victim doubt their memory or perception of events.
Blame Shifting: The gaslighter blames the victim for things they haven't done or for the gaslighter's own actions.
Persistent Denial: Gaslighters often deny having said or done something, even when there's clear evidence. This consistent denial can cause the victim to doubt their memory and perceptions.
Creating Confusion: By giving contradictory information or frequently changing their story, gaslighters create confusion and uncertainty. This makes the victim unsure of what is true, often leading them to rely more on the gaslighter for "clarity."
Projection: Gaslighters often accuse their victims of behaviors or intentions that they themselves are guilty of. This projection can deflect attention from their own wrongdoings and place the blame on the victim.
Isolation: Gaslighters may try to isolate the victim from friends, family, or support systems. This can be done by sowing distrust or creating conflicts between the victim and others, making the victim more dependent on the gaslighter.
Intimidation and Threats: Sometimes gaslighters use intimidation, threats, or abusive language to maintain control and make the victim feel insecure or afraid.
Minimizing or Dismissing Concerns: Gaslighters often minimize the victim's concerns or feelings, making them feel like they are overreacting or being overly sensitive. This diminishes the victim's confidence in their own feelings and experiences.
Using Compassionate Language: Some gaslighters use a facade of concern or affection to manipulate. They might say things like "I'm only trying to help you" or "I'm worried about your mental health," framing their manipulation as care.
Creating a False Narrative: Gaslighters often construct a false narrative that portrays them as the victim or as innocent, while casting the actual victim as irrational or unstable. This narrative can be used to justify their behavior and garner sympathy or support from others.

Obviously, many of these can be decomposed and written about at length. Many of these features reoccur within high control groups that demand compliance to suppress dissent and ensure conformity. However, I want to focus on just a few of the strategies that I see as fundamental to Theism itself. The very concept "God" is a form of gaslighting.

Consider the notion of Omniscient; to "know everything". What could this even mean? In "On Certainty", Wittgenstein explores the relationship between knowledge and doubt. Wittgenstein contends that knowledge presupposes the possibility of doubt; to know something is to be in a position to justify it against potential doubt. In other words, to know anything is to concede the possibility of doubt, which would be a contradiction in the case of God who by definition, cannot have doubts; he is supposed to be infallible. Put simply, the concept "omniscience" is inconsistent with "knowledge"; to know something entails uncertainty. Doubt and certainty are interdependent: the very notion of "knowing" something involves the potential for doubt. Wittgenstein suggests that for a person to claim knowledge, they must be able to justify their belief against possible doubts. This means that knowledge is not simply about having true beliefs; it also requires having reasons or evidence that can be offered in response to questioning. Without the possibility of doubt, there would be no need for justification, and thus the concept of knowledge would lose its meaning. Doubt is inherent to the concept of knowledge. To argue that an entity "knows everything" simply misunderstands what it means "to know" anything at all. But can God have doubts? Absolutely not. So this is a contradiction.

Even if we take "know everything" to mean "know a lot more than humans", we still run into problems. Consider what it would mean to have a relationship with someone/something that knows infinitely more than yourself; could you possibly have a mutually understanding relationship with that thing? I was recently re-reading Flowers for Algernon. If you've not read that book I highly recommend it because it explores concepts related to knowledge, mental disability, and intelligence. Charlie Gordon, the protagonist, is a man of extremely low IQ who agrees to undergo treatments that will enhance his intelligence. As the story progresses, we see Charlie having an extremely difficult time relating to people when his intelligence surpasses his peers. He also begins to realize that, when he was of low IQ, people who he thought were his friends were simply using him as amusement. One of the themes of the novel highlights the phenomenon of being unintelligible to other people when you go through these sorts of transformations. The novel highlights the idea that communication and understanding inevitably breaks down when there are staggering differences between you and your peers. Relating this back to Omniscience, for some entity to "know" or "understand" exponentially more amounts of information than yourself, this would entail the impossibility of ever understanding the entity, let alone forming a meaningful relationship with that entity. Consider our human knowledge in relation to some "lower species"; something with a few neurons. Can a fly come to know you personally and form a meaningful bond? What would it even mean for a fly to know and love a human? Now multiple this differential by the largest number imaginable; that is how much more God knows than you. An entity of that intelligence wouldn't have the slightest need for a human, nor any of our underlying motivations (and most certainly would not need to be worshipped). These are just two of the attributes attributed to the Abrahamic god and we can already begin to see something off.

Consider a third attribute usually imposed on god: Omnipresence. To be "external" to "time and space" yet everywhere "in time" is at best inconsistent and at worst unintelligible gibberish. Even if we somehow make sense of this concept, accepting it leads to absurdities. In the abstract of Matt McCormicks "Why God Cannot Think: Kant, Omnipresence, & Consciousness:

It has been argued that God is omnipresent, that is, present in all places and in all times. Omnipresence is also implied by God's knowledge, power, and perfection. A Kantian argument shows that in order to be self-aware, apply concepts, and form judgments, in short, to have a mind, there must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to. There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind. The standard theological attributes of God are omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. Philosophical discussions have also focused on a set of metaphysical attributes of God that include properties such as perfection, timelessness, immutability, absoluteness, and omnipresence. 1 There is also a set of tertiary attributes that God may have by implication of the other properties or that are implied by classic characterizations. These are consciousness, will, desire, and goals. It is often said that God is aware of your sins, God issues commands, God has a plan, God wants you to do good, and so on. I believe that a coherent conception of God cannot be formed from the complete set of the theological, metaphysical, and tertiary attributes. Nor can a coherent conception of God be formed from several of the subsets of these attributes because some of the attributes themselves are incoherent, or because combinations of some of the attributes are inconsistent. 2 In this article I will argue that omnipresence is not consistent with having what I will call higher consciousness, which includes the cognitive capacities to recognize and judge objects in the world and to be aware of one's representations as representations. Let us call the combined property of being omnipresent and having higher consciousness, omniconsciousness. This article will argue that 1) omniconsciousness is not possible because in order to be conscious a being must be limited in ways that an omnipresent thing is not, and 2) since omnipresence has been attributed to God by a number of influential theologians and omnipresence is implied by omniscience, omnipotence, and perfection, God cannot have higher consciousness.

In other words, this idea of omnipresence leads to straight forward absurdities. Why am I bringing all of this up and how does this relate to gaslighting? Well, if I simply cannot conceive of the entity you say exists, then how am I supposed to "believe in it" in any meaningful sense of the word? God is typically defined via-negativa. If you list me thousands of attributes of what God is not, have you made clear what it's even supposed to be? Even assigning god male attributes is absurd. Is god supposed to have a penis? What use would an eternal/timeless being separate from evolutionary history have with a penis? Upon inspection, this concept is vacuous. This ties directly into number 7 on the list above; religious institutions gaslight us by insisting that an inconceivable being exists in a realm that literally no human being could have access to. The very concept "God" instills confusion among anyone attempting to uncover the nuances of the concept. When someone like me points out the absurdities, they respond with number 5; I can't understand god because I am somehow defected. "God would reveal himself to you if your heart wasn't hardened", they say, after I elaborate compelling reasons demonstrating why the very concept is flawed. Some might respond with Number 11 by saying "yeah God is completely beyond our understanding, but we nevertheless can know he loves us <3"; as if this doesn't multiply the inconsistencies of their initial doctrine. If god is unknowable and inconsistent by definition, how could anyone know anything about it? It simply begs the question even further. These are non-answers. The very core of Theism is one big gaslight.

Different gaslighting strategies occur at different stages of religious development and are employed differently between institutions. One institution might use a differing subset at time T than another, then shift to an alternative strategy at time T+1 depending on the relative success of the methods used at T-1. In other words, these strategies are used dynamically as feedback is recovered from prior states. Therefore, it is difficult to pin down exactly one dominant strategy used by all institutions at all times. This is likely not to be the case, so we must consider how other factors relate to strategy selection. For example, a large parish with many children will probably use different strategies than a smaller parish with a larger average age. Nevertheless, we can see patterns across the population. Here are a few common trends:

Spiritual Manipulation: Religious authorities may manipulate scriptural interpretations or spiritual teachings to suit their agenda. An example - A leader might insist that doubting the leader's authority or teachings is equivalent to doubting the divine or showing a lack of faith. They might say, "Questioning my guidance is questioning God's plan," thereby equating personal loyalty to the leader with spiritual faithfulness. This tactic causes believers to question their own spiritual integrity and silences legitimate questions or concerns by framing them as spiritual failures.
Denial of Experiences or Feelings: Dismissing or minimizing believers' personal experiences, emotions, or insights that contradict the official doctrine or the leader's teachings. If a believer shares an experience of feeling uneasy or witnessing misconduct within the church, they might be told, "You're overreacting," or "You must have misunderstood what you saw." This can invalidate the person's genuine concerns and experiences. This tactic makes individuals doubt their perceptions and feelings, reinforcing the idea that the religious authority's perspective is the only valid one.
Isolation and Control: Isolating members from outside influences or relationships that might challenge the institution's control. Encouraging or mandating that members only associate with other members of the faith, and portraying outside influences as dangerous or evil. Leaders might say, "Worldly people will lead you astray," thus promoting a sense of fear and mistrust toward those outside the group. This isolation fosters dependency on the religious institution for social support and validation, making it harder for members to question or leave the faith.
Fear and Guilt Induction: Using fear of divine punishment, eternal damnation, or guilt to manipulate behavior and beliefs. Telling believers that leaving the faith or questioning its teachings will result in divine retribution or eternal damnation. Phrases like "Doubting God's will is sinful and will lead to hell" instill fear and guilt in members. This method creates anxiety and guilt, leading believers to suppress doubts or questions to avoid punishment, thus reinforcing control.
Selective Truth-Telling: Providing selective information or distorting facts to maintain a certain narrative or belief system. Emphasizing positive aspects of the religion while downplaying or ignoring any historical controversies, doctrinal inconsistencies, or scandals. For instance, a church might highlight charitable activities but dismiss or minimize past abuses or corruption. This selective presentation of information can distort believers' understanding of reality, leading them to question the validity of any negative information they might encounter.
Invalidation of Individual Identity: Promoting the idea that personal identity and worth are entirely dependent on adherence to religious doctrines. Teaching that individual desires, goals, or talents are unimportant unless they align with the church's mission, or that personal worth is solely based on obedience to the faith. Statements like "Your purpose in life is only fulfilled through serving the church" can negate personal autonomy. This approach undermines individual autonomy and self-worth, making members feel that their value and identity are contingent on the approval of the religious institution.
Creating a Cult of Personality: Elevating a religious leader to an unquestionable status, where criticism or questioning of the leader is equated with blasphemy or lack of faith. A leader might be portrayed as having a direct line to divine wisdom, making their teachings infallible. Followers might be told, "The leader is chosen by God, and doubting them is doubting God." This creates an environment where dissent or disagreement is not tolerated, and followers are pressured to align their beliefs and behaviors with the leader's views, regardless of their own thoughts or feelings.
Invalidating Personal Experiences: Believers who express doubts or share personal spiritual experiences that differ from the accepted narrative are told they are mistaken, sinful, or influenced by external, negative forces. By invalidating these experiences, religious leaders make individuals question their spiritual perceptions and feelings, reinforcing the idea that only the institution's perspective is valid.
Blame Shifting for Spiritual Failures: A religious institution blames the individual's lack of faith or moral failings for any misfortune or unanswered prayers, rather than acknowledging any institutional shortcomings or theological complexities. This shifts the responsibility and guilt onto the believer, making them feel inadequate and dependent on the institution for redemption or improvement.
Alteration of Historical Facts: A religious institution might rewrite or reinterpret historical events to suit its narrative, denying any negative actions or mistakes made by the institution in the past. By altering historical facts, the institution makes believers doubt any external or contrary sources of information, fostering an environment where only the institution's version of history is accepted.

Obviously, not all of this occurs in all instantiations of Christianity. Nevertheless, these patterns occur regularly enough to form basic assessments.

Thoughtcrimes and Mental Privacy

This is an important topic because, given the conception of a god who "knows all of our thoughts", some believers are extremely hesitant to think of, let alone voice any, doubts. Remember, faith is the ultimate virtue. Doubt is typically contrasted with faith. Believing in an all-knowing god who disapproves of doubt, but can peer into your mind to see that you are doubting, can lead to acute psychological distress. Many will suppress the thoughts all together; subsequently preventing the crucial development of critical thinking capabilities. Lets reacquaint ourselves with what faith is. According to Matt McCormick:

- To take something on faith or to believe by faith is to believe it despite contrary or inadequate evidence. It is to believe anyway when there's not enough support from evidence and reason to clear the way.

- The overcoming of doubts or counter-evidence is the essential feature of faith.

- If someone's reaction to my arguments against the resurrection and other religious beliefs is that she has faith, then she is conceding the central point. In effect, she is acknowledging that in order to believe those religious doctrines, one must ignore the inefficiencies in the evidence and believe anyway.

- If there is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion, then faith isn't needed. So to suggest that faith and evidence jointly justify is acknowledging that the evidence by itself isn't enough, and I will ignore that gap and believe anyway.

- In fact, the need to invoke faith to bridge the gap affirms the inadequacy of the evidence.

- In effect, the faith response amounts to, "I'm going to believe anyway, despite those objections." That's just dogmatic irrationality, not a serious consideration that the critic must give some further objection to.

A quote from theramintrees seems to encapsulate the concept quite succinctly:

The very idea of 'faith', in a religious context, carries the intrinsic notion of yielding to human authority. To allow the anomalous class of 'supernatural' entities into our belief system, we have to accept another human's hearsay as reality. With the proposed entities inaccessible to our senses, there is no other mechanism. Of course, if they were accessible to our senses it would also, by definition, no longer be a matter of faith to believe they existed. Some folks still point to holy books as evidence. But books describing supernatural events, creatures and processes for which there's again no evidence, amount to the same thing: hearsay.

A large part of what makes high control groups successful is to block, suppress, or limit the scope of permissible critical questioning. In many cases, as in the case of the Abrahamic religions, criticism is only allowed if directed towards the out-group. This is vastly different than something like the scientific enterprise which promotes and directs inquiry at ones own position. But why would anyone agree to submit themselves to such a system? At any given time, someone can deviate, so what prevents them from doing so? Well, there is a similar phenomenon that manifests as groupthink in a variety of religious and non-religious scenarios. This is something we are inherently predisposed to do. We fear ostracization, so it is very tempting to limit the range of heretical thought for the sake of group cohesion and social stability. This is but one mechanism in the class of psychological theories related to conformity that can explain the reluctance to voice doubt. Group processes can be incredibly intricate. But there is something unique with respect to monotheistic traditions that amplifies the tendency to suppress doubt that isn't present in regular group dynamics; that being the existence of an all-knowing and all-powerful deity that polices thought. By positing the existence of an entity that has absolute authority to punish anyone for what it sees as morally deviant, combined with the ability to track every thought, the believer who thinks that "faith is the ultimate virtue" will more often than not: suppress their own doubts, reject external information/considerations, associate with other dogmatic thinkers, and reinforce their own confirmation bias. It's truly a magnificent system for belief preservation. By lacking any perceived mental privacy, you don't have the ability to critically assess your thoughts independently.

Of course, the dynamic is a bit more complex then what I've described so far. Since there really isnt any entity policing your thoughts, how does this belief persist? The socio-linguistic community bolsters this assumption. By constantly attending church and engaging with members of the community through social activities, these beliefs are constantly reinforced. You are constantly reminded of the omniscient deity who is monitoring your every thought. The social dynamics reinforce that belief; it's a second order effect that is the byproduct of group dynamics. I think this was very evident during COVID lockdowns. Since people weren't able to engage in these sorts of community events that reinforce their beliefs and weren't as ideologically isolated as they were prior by being exposed to contrasting/diverging opinions on the internet, people were able to critically question some of their fundamental beliefs independent of the group. Attending church gatherings for example, radically limits the opportunity to consult diverging opinions and limits the scope of available thought. I think this also explains why many Christians began "deconstructing" their beliefs. When the drummer at the mega-church is rocking out (but its all for Jesus), everyone participates in singing. We know that these things have a significant priming effect that sequesters critical thinking. In the absence of this, people begin to start thinking again.

What I've postulated so far can be described as follows. Part of monotheistic belief entails the existence of an omniscient deity that can peer into your mind and see all of your thoughts. This amplifies dogmatic adherence by limiting/suppressing critical thought. But this is a second order effect; certain necessary conditions must be present before such a belief could be formed and held. This is where community and group dynamics operate. They serve as the stepping stone, enabling the second order condition to develop and obtain. Once the group dynamics are sufficiently established, the second order belief can begin to develop, amplifying adherence to the basic doctrine by operating as a positive feedback loop. The arrow of causality can be described by the diagram below:

"Faith" can be understood as the target goal of the system. Since faith is defined as the intolerance of counter-considerations, the ultimate "higher order good" that someone can attain, and a positively valued above all by the deity, this serves as a strong feedback mechanism that prevents the individual from critically assessing the foundational pillars of their beliefs, ultimately reinforcing belief. 7

Another way of thinking about it might be that Theistic belief entails the presence of specific cognitive processes that reinforce themselves by limiting external information from flowing through the system. The social dynamics of religious affiliation lends itself to the formation of filter bubbles. Personalized filtering is enabled, reinforced, and valued by these group processes, leading to intellectual isolation and hence, amplifying the tendency of dogmatism. Filter bubbles are usually discussed in the context of algorithmic recommendation systems but the first instantiation of this phenomenon was developed and implemented centuries ago by religious institutions. It is a social technology that forms an Echo Chamber, enabling selective exposure to confirming information sources. However, in the case of theistic belief, it's not just a filter; there are certain mechanisms built into the belief system that assign positive or negative valence to the incoming information , as well as preconceived evaluation standards. For example, a cult leader might tell his members that "he is not a cult leader" and that antagonists will "label him a cult leader, in effort to convince you otherwise". When the member is confronted with external sources attempting to show this man is a cult leader, this actually results in strong confirmation of the cult leaders statements. In other words, the cult leader has built into the belief system a mechanism for evaluating contradictory evidence in a way that strengthens belief in its fundamental tenants. This is called Evidential Preemption, and is regularly used by religious apologists, manipulative media sources, and politicians. From Endre Begby's paper:

Abstract: As a general rule, whenever a hearer is justified in forming the belief that p on the basis of a speaker’s testimony, she will also be justified in believing that the speaker has formed her belief appropriately in light of a relevantly large and representative sample of the evidence that bears on p. In simpler terms, a justification for taking someone’s testimony entails a justification for trusting her assessment of the evidence. This introduces the possibility of what I will call “evidential preemption.” Evidential preemption occurs when a speaker, in addition to offering testimony that p, also warns the hearer of the likelihood that she will subsequently be confronted with apparently contrary evidence: this is done, however, not so as to encourage the hearer to temper her confidence in p in anticipation of that evidence, but rather to suggest that the (apparently) contrary evidence is in fact misleading evidence or evidence that has already been taken into account. Either way, the speaker is signaling to the hearer that the subsequent disclosure of this evidence will not require her to significantly revise her belief that p. Such preemption can effectively inoculate an audience against future contrary evidence, and thereby creates an opening for a form of exploitative manipulation that I will call “epistemic grooming.” Nonetheless, I argue, not all uses of evidential preemption are nefarious; it can also serve as an important tool for guiding epistemically limited agents though complex evidential scenarios.

If you've read the bible, I feel like I don't really need to elaborate on examples to demonstrate that this form of epistemic grooming is littered throughout every text. This mechanism of theistic belief leads to echo chambers. This is why I've made the distinction between the group-dynamics leading to filter bubbles and the specific mechanisms that lead to evidential preemption. C. Thi Nguyen explains the distinction in his paper Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles:

Recent conversation has blurred two very different social epistemic phenomena: echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Members of epistemic bubbles merely lack exposure to relevant information and arguments. Members of echo chambers, on the other hand, have been brought to systematically distrust all outside sources. In epistemic bubbles, other voices are not heard; in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined. It is crucial to keep these phenomena distinct. First, echo chambers can explain the post-truth phenomena in a way that epistemic bubbles cannot. Second, each type of structure requires a distinct intervention. Mere exposure to evidence can shatter an epistemic bubble, but may actually reinforce an echo chamber. Finally, echo chambers are much harder to escape. Once in their grip, an agent may act with epistemic virtue, but social context will pervert those actions. Escape from an echo chamber may require a radical rebooting of one's belief system.

This guy honestly has amazing papers. In his paper Playfulness Versus Epistemic Traps, he identifies key persuasive methods used to prevent critical thought and persist dogmatic adherence to whatever the ideology might be. I think that the concept of an omniscient deity that monitors your thoughts is a crucial epistemic trap used by theistic religions. It fundamentally prevents thought from occurring and actively creates immense distrust towards external information sources. From his paper:

What is the value of intellectual playfulness? Traditional characterizations of the ideal thinker often leave out playfulness; the ideal inquirer is supposed to be sober, careful, and conscientiousness. But else-where we find another ideal: the laughing sage, the playful thinker. These are models of intellectual playfulness. Intellectual playfulness, I suggest, is the disposition to try out alternate belief systems for fun - to try on radically different perspectives for the sheer pleasure of it. But what would the cognitive value be of such playfulness? I suggest that intellectual playfulness function as, at the very least, a kind of intellectual insurance policy against epistemic traps. An epistemic trap is a belief system that re-directs good-faith inquiry to bad results. An epistemic trap manipulates background beliefs to fend off contrary evidence. For example, a conspiracy theory might include a set of beliefs about how the mainstream media has been taken over by some vicious cabal. Normal epistemic attempts will be captured by well-wrought epistemic traps, because normal attempts at inquiry are guided by these background beliefs -- which set what counts as a plausible path to explore, and what is implausible or beyond the pale. And a clever epistemic trap will manipulate those background beliefs for ill effect. Intellectual playfulness, on the other hand, isn't motivated by an epistemic interest in the truth, but in the sheer pleasure of intellectual exploration. Since intellectual playfulness isn't oriented towards the truth, it wont be constrained by an agents background beliefs - it wont, for example, prefer to investigate apparently more plausible pathways. Intellectual playfulness offers an opportunity to escape from epistemic traps. But intellectual playfulness has its own limitations. It will only drive us to explore belief systems when the exploration is fun. What we need is an array of differently-motivated exploratory tendencies - empathy, curiosity, playfulness - each of which will each cover for the others limitations.

Referring back to my diagram above, stage 1 is the formation of filter bubbles based on group dynamics. Stage 2 is the epistemic trap that demonizes dissenting information.

Poisoning the Well

This section can be seen as somewhat of a corollary to the prior section. Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is strategically presented to an audience with the intention of discrediting something about their position or their character entirely. You can see this all the time in politics, but its noticeably present in religious groups most notably used by apologists and preachers. The definition is very similar to the idea of Evidential Preemption, but distinct in its crudeness and less broad in its scope of effectiveness. This is more of a Framing strategy rather than a component of an echo chamber. It's a propaganda technique employed regularly to preemptively discredit contrasting worldviews and degrade effective communication between two parties. Based on my observations, it seems like many are simply unaware that it's constantly being used especially in Church. Here are a few examples:

In an attempt to show the "exclusivity" and "uniqueness" of their religion, they will ignore the fact that Christianity is a syncretistic religion, despite the abundance of evidence suggesting otherwise from fields like mimesis criticism. There is clear evidence of fusion with Neoplatonism for example. They will simultaneously undermine atheistic positions, calling them "worldly" or "godless", in an attempt to show the audience these positions are somehow substandard or inferior to the Christian position. These words are not meant to be pure descriptions, they are meant to create negative impressions of a position prior to someone engaging with it. Remember that to be "of this world" is to be inferior to the "true world"; this world also "belongs to Satan". It effectively demonizes contrary positions before you even hear them. Furthermore, to be "of this world" is to be inferior to the "godly" perspective, so technically it's an implicit argument of superiority prior to even hearing what the other person has to say. Douglas Walton has a great book titled Emotive Language in Argumentation that identifies definitional strategies like this. These are emotive words used for the specific purpose to poison the well. The main point is that Christians tend to overlook this tactic. They don't even realize that these are rhetorical tactics used to persuade them.
Many religions mock other religions to show the superiority of their own. Putting other religions down to bolster your own is a common method that frequently uses poisoning-the-well tactics to dismiss contradictory positions. I've seen many examples of this in Church. On one occasion, a pastor was making fun of Eastern religions such as Hinduism, claiming that the "idea of polytheism is absurd". They were doing this while simultaneously ignoring Christianity’s own weird inconsistencies and contradictions such as the Trinity (which many have compelling argued that this is nothing more than polytheism). This is not benign. The Hindu religion is incredibly diverse and has sophisticated doctrines. There are plenty of monotheistic interpretations such as Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism. But by asserting they "worship monkeys" and that "there are 50,000 gods", pastors are trying to poison the well; they are trying to show that other belief systems are foolish before anyone engages with them. Even dismissing polytheism is absurd in the context of Christianity. Near-East religions were historically polytheistic and Christianity emerged from that context. Polytheism makes much more sense given fine tuning arguments. Even calling it "Hinduism" is an implicit mischaracterization. During the colonial era, European scholars and colonial administrators often categorized and named other belief systems using the "ism" suffix to create distinct labels, partly to facilitate comparative study and partly to assert a certain objectivity or distance. This categorization was influenced by a Western, often Christian-centric perspective. For example, terms like "Hinduism," "Buddhism," "Taoism," and "Confucianism" were coined or popularized during this period. Slapping the "Ism" on the end of these belief systems is a rhetorical and linguistic strategy that implicitly argues "these are all ideologies, while we have the Truth". These terms were used to differentiate and classify religions and philosophies in a way that often did not align with how adherents of those traditions viewed their own beliefs. For instance, many traditions within what is now called "Hinduism" refer to themselves as Sanatana Dharma or simply Dharma, and the concept of a singular, monolithic "Buddhism" might not fully capture the diversity within Buddhist practices and beliefs. In the context of a Christian religious sermon, everything else is a distorted ideology. There is no "Christian-Ism" because that label would imply it's just another ideology. But obviously they want to distinguish themselves.
This tactic is even used when interpreting scripture. It might not be well-known but early Christianity was incredibly diverse. I wasn't aware of this until the last few years but prior to the canonization and compilation of what we now call "the Bible", there were many "Christianity's" that were radically divergent theologically. Many of these early movements were incompatible with one another and might look alien to what we now consider "Orthodox". This is important to understand because it provides a broader context into Pauline theology and it's impact on modern Christianity. I once observed a sermon in which the pastor was preaching about Ephesians. Essentially, the sermon reduced to ignoring early Christianity and the diversity of belief. All of the other “beliefs” were ipso-facto wrong (because Paul said so) and inspired by "pagan worldly ideology" (because Paul said so). This is a remarkable admission of religious syncretism. How does Paul distinguish his theology from conflicting accounts? He poisons the well. He simply asserts that God spoke to him directly and that everyone else is a liar, driven by "worldly" understandings. The pastor delivering the sermon echoes this tactic by reaffirming that everyone else were lying pagans. Notice that in these letters there is absolutely zero effort to engage with dissenting theological opinion. We don't hear anything substantive about the diverging beliefs, all we are told is that they're all wrong. This is so funny to me because even within the Bible itself we see people poisoning the well. How can we know that Paul isn't also partially influenced by the Hellenistic context? I mean after all, can anyone absolutely stand outside of their culture? This example demonstrates that this tactic has been used literally for centuries by religious institutions. "Don't listen to those other believers, they are all wrong". By the way, if "dying for your belief" shows that your belief is correct, then I guess all of those early Christian theological doctrines were correct, because you can be quite certain that they were murdered as heretics when Christianity seized power in Rome. This poison-the-well tactic is used today within Christianity to dismiss different denominations. Consider Calvinism. Many Protestant denominations make fun of this branch on the basis that they "don't believe in free will", and hence "don't believe in moral responsibility". Of course, this is a misrepresentation of their beliefs. Many Calvinists are compatibilists and do believe in moral responsibility. But is anyone in the Parish going to verify their preachers claims? Probably not. Are the preachers going to charitably represent a Calvinists reasons for holding to such a doctrine? Most likely not in the context of a sermon. This has a profound impact on the beliefs within the parish because they're likely not going to explore the breadth of Christianity, instead remaining in their local bubble.

I think a related concept might be useful because in many instances this seems to be the method used by religiously driven political organizations. Black Propaganda is propaganda intended to create the impression that negative content was created by those it is supposed to discredit. In other words, Black propaganda is a type of communication that is designed to deceive, mislead, or manipulate its audience by concealing the true source or intent of the message. Unlike white propaganda, which openly reveals its source and often seeks to persuade through rational arguments and factual information, black propaganda disguises its origin and often uses falsehoods or distorted information.

These tactics are commonly used in the context of youth ministry. That Time My Youth Group Tricked Me: Who Thought This Was A Good Idea? gives a detailed story of what I see as an instance of Black Propaganda. Basically, this guy recounts a time from when he was an impressionable teenager in a youth group. There was a "speaker" to come talk to the group. This "speaker" was an introduced as an "Atheist" to the group, but later they find out that he was indeed a Christian. He essentially strawman's all Atheists by telling the group he "hates god" and that he pretty much doesn't have any sense of moral responsibility. From the youth groups perspective, they are engaging with their first non-believer, and are convinced of this misrepresentation. They were not aware of the actual motive of the speaker and larger context. To me this is fucking insane. I fortunately did not have to grow up with this kind of mental abuse.

Black propaganda relies on a few key characteristics:

Concealed Source: The true origin or source of the propaganda is hidden. It may appear to come from a friendly or neutral party, or even from the opposition, rather than the actual source.
Deceptive Content: The information disseminated may be false, misleading, or distorted. The aim is to mislead the audience about the true nature of the information or the intentions behind it.
Manipulative Intent: The primary goal of black propaganda is to manipulate the audience’s perceptions, emotions, and behaviors in a way that benefits the propagandist's agenda. This can involve creating confusion, sowing discord, or discrediting opponents.
Psychological Impact: Black propaganda often targets emotions, exploiting fears, prejudices, or existing tensions within a society or group to achieve its goals.

I think it's obvious in the example above that these characteristics are present in the youth groups predatory tactics. These tactics can be particularly effective in youth ministry settings, where leaders often play a significant role in shaping young people's beliefs and worldviews. By using deceptive or manipulative information, leaders can strengthen the group's cohesion and discourage members from exploring other perspectives. Here are a few more general examples of what they might do:

Misrepresentation of Other Faiths: In some cases, religious groups might spread misleading or false information about other religions to discourage members from exploring those faiths. For instance, they may falsely claim that another religion is harmful, immoral, or fundamentally flawed without providing accurate information or context. This tactic might be employed in youth ministry settings where leaders want to ensure young members remain within their religious community by fostering fear or suspicion of other faiths.
Exaggerating External Threats: Religious organizations might use black propaganda by exaggerating or fabricating threats from external groups, such as atheists, secularists, or other religious denominations. This can create a "siege mentality" among members, making them feel that their faith is under attack and reinforcing a sense of unity and loyalty. This might involve spreading rumors or false narratives about persecution or discrimination that the group faces, which can be especially impactful in youth groups where young people may be more impressionable.
Discrediting Former Members or Critics: Some religious groups might use black propaganda to discredit former members or critics, portraying them as untrustworthy, immoral, or dangerous. This can include spreading rumors or false stories about these individuals' actions or character. In youth ministry, this could manifest as warnings against associating with those who have left the group, using exaggerated or fabricated tales of the negative consequences faced by former members.
Promoting Doctrinal Purity Through Fear: Black propaganda can also be used to promote doctrinal purity by instilling fear of divine punishment or spiritual consequences for questioning or deviating from the group’s teachings. This might involve spreading stories of supernatural retribution against those who stray from the faith or portraying questioning as a dangerous path leading to personal and spiritual ruin.
Creating a False Narrative of Exclusivity: Some groups might propagate the idea that they alone possess the "truth" and that all other belief systems are either misguided or maliciously deceptive. This might involve distorting or misrepresenting the beliefs and practices of others to emphasize the supposed uniqueness and superiority of the group's own teachings.

I think a realistic schematic might be useful to see how this tactic might operate. Lets suppose a youth ministry group is concerned about the influence of secular ideologies and the possibility of members leaving the faith. To maintain unity and discourage exploration of other viewpoints, the ministry decides to use black propaganda tactics to discredit non-believers and ex-Christians. Here is the strategy:

Identify the Target Group: Non-believers and ex-Christians, especially those known to the youth group members or prominent in the community.
Crafting the Message: Create stories or narratives that portray non-believers and ex-Christians as being unhappy, morally corrupt, or facing negative consequences due to their lack of faith. Use emotionally charged language and personal testimonies. Emphasize the negative consequences of abandoning the faith.
Concealment and Dissemination: Present these stories as testimonials or anonymous accounts to conceal the ministry's direct involvement. They may use phrases like "a friend of a friend" or "someone from another town" to add a layer of credibility while maintaining anonymity.
Reinforce with Moral and Spiritual Warnings: Emphasize spiritual dangers or divine retribution associated with abandoning the faith or adopting secular beliefs.
Reinforce In-group Unity: Highlight the positive aspects of staying within the faith community, such as support, moral guidance, and spiritual fulfillment.

During a youth group meeting, the leader shares a story titled "A Cautionary Tale of Lost Faith."

Story Outline:

The leader recounts the story of "John," a former member of a similar youth group in another town. John was once deeply involved in the church, known for his enthusiasm and leadership skills.
According to the story, John began questioning his faith after being influenced by secular friends and reading atheist literature. He eventually declared himself a non-believer and left the church.
The story goes on to describe how John's life took a downward spiral after abandoning his faith: he struggled with depression, lost his sense of purpose, and fell into a lifestyle of substance abuse and moral decay.
The leader ends the story with an anonymous quote attributed to John: "Leaving the church was the biggest mistake of my life. I lost everything I valued."

Moral and Spiritual Warnings:

The leader emphasizes that John's story is a warning to anyone considering leaving the faith or questioning church teachings. They stress that abandoning the church can lead to spiritual emptiness, personal turmoil, and social isolation.
The leader also hints at divine displeasure, suggesting that John's negative experiences might be a form of divine retribution for turning away from God.

Reinforcing Group Unity:

After sharing the story, the leader encourages the group to support each other in their faith journey and to be wary of external influences that may lead them astray.
The group is reminded of the love, support, and moral guidance offered by the church, contrasting it with the bleak portrayal of life outside the faith.

Impact on the Audience:

The story and the way it is presented create a negative image of non-believers and ex-Christians, reinforcing a "us vs. them" mentality.
It discourages members from exploring other belief systems or questioning their own faith by instilling fear of negative consequences.
The use of an anonymous or fictionalized account helps the ministry avoid direct accusations of slander or misinformation.

In this scenario, the youth ministry uses black propaganda to subtly manipulate the perceptions and behaviors of its members, aiming to maintain group cohesion and discourage exploration of alternative viewpoints.

Black Propaganda Tactics Used:

Misleading Testimonials: Scenario - During a youth group meeting, the youth pastor invites a guest speaker who claims to be an ex-Christian turned atheist or creates a fictitious ex-Christian. The speaker shares a dramatic and exaggerated story of how their life became filled with misery, moral decay, and hopelessness after leaving Christianity. They emphasize that non-believers and ex-Christians lead unfulfilling and troubled lives. Example Quote - "After I abandoned my faith, everything fell apart. I lost my job, my relationships crumbled, and I felt a deep emptiness inside. I thought I could find happiness outside the church, but all I found was darkness and despair."
Distorted Information: Scenario - The youth ministry distributes pamphlets containing distorted statistics and false information about non-believers and ex-Christians. The pamphlets claim that non-believers are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, substance abuse, and suffer from mental health issues. Example Text from Pamphlet - "Studies show that people who leave Christianity are three times more likely to become addicted to drugs and twice as likely to suffer from severe depression. Only by staying true to the faith can one find true happiness and moral guidance."
Creating an "Us vs. Them" Mentality: Scenario - In a group discussion, the youth pastor emphasizes the idea that non-believers and ex-Christians are actively trying to undermine the faith of true believers. They portray these individuals as being influenced by Satan and as threats to the spiritual well-being of the youth. Example Discussion Point - "We need to be vigilant and protect ourselves from those who have turned away from God. They might try to convince you that their way is better, but remember, they are being misled by the forces of evil. We must stand firm in our faith and support each other."

The scenario exemplifies black propaganda as it involves deliberate deception, hidden sources, and manipulative messages aimed at shaping perceptions and behaviors in a way that benefits the propagandists (the church leaders). By concealing the orchestrated nature of the propaganda and presenting biased, false, or exaggerated information as credible and neutral, the ministry effectively manipulates the youth's beliefs and attitudes toward non-believers and ex-Christians. The use of personal testimonies and dramatic stories targets the emotions of the youth, evoking fear, guilt, and a sense of urgency to remain within the group. This emotional appeal is designed to overshadow rational analysis and discourage critical thinking. The repeated messages and discussions reinforce a collective identity centered around the church's teachings, making it psychologically difficult for the youth to question or leave the group. The content and messages aim to instill fear in the youth about leaving the faith or associating with non-believers and ex-Christians. By presenting these groups as morally and spiritually bankrupt, the ministry seeks to create a strong in-group loyalty and a fear-based rejection of others. The narrative promotes a clear divide between the "faithful" and the "lost," fostering a sense of superiority and exclusivity among the youth. This tactic manipulates the youth into feeling that they must protect their faith against an external threat. The speaker's story and the pamphlets exaggerate or fabricate the negative consequences of leaving the faith, such as claims of moral decay, personal misery, and societal failure among non-believers and ex-Christians. This deceptive content is intended to create a distorted perception of life outside the church. This literally fits the criteria of Black Propaganda. This is incredible since it is a psychological operations tactic used in military campaigns.

This is not to say that all religious institutions employ tactics like this. Nevertheless, it definitely contributes to the overall proportion of believers in the United States. It is more common to see tactics like poisoning the well. These occur more frequently. Black propaganda campaigns happen in very specific situations but the underlying theme of the tactic is consistent with poisoning the well. The whole idea is to discredit someone before allowing them to present their case. Another common example of something similar is Procatalepsis (prebuttal). This is frequently employed by religious apologists. Since they are primarily concerned with "defending the faith", they use many rhetorical tactics to rebut objections before they are even presented. In the context of debate, this method is used to answer the opponents possible objections before they can be made. They might also raise a question and then immediately dismiss or answer it. This typically ends up being a strawman of their opponent. Nevertheless, it has an impact on the audience, especially if dissenting opinions are prevented from being clarified given debate constrains. The correct way to employ this strategy would be to charitably represent your interlocutor and ask for clarifying questions without imposing your assumptions upon them. But do they do this? Nope. Anyway, below are some great videos demonstrating these tactics.

"Foolishness for Christ", Thought Terminating Tendencies, Anti-Intellectualism, and Religious Anti-Rationalism

I categorize all of these together because they share one common attribute: the fundamental idea that "true wisdom" is separable and superior to "worldly wisdom". If you've ever had the chance to read any of Paul's letters, you will find a constant reiteration that "to be worldly" is dramatically inferior, and in many cases antagonistic or downright evil, compared to the "Godly person". All of these tendencies derive from some of these basic biblical themes. They insulate the belief system by promoting patterns of thought that are antagonistic to intellectual courage, curiosity, and critical thinking. They entail certain dispositions that suppress reflective criticism, demonize inquiry, and radically narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. The belief propagates because it is never properly engaged with from an investigative perspective.

Lets begin with "Foolishness for Christ". I've encountered numerous deconversion testimonies where people describe how, while being apart of the faith, they almost never had the desire or opportunity to learn anything that wasn't biblical. There is a persistent feedback loop that reinforces engagement with biblical material and apologetics from within the community starting from childhood. You are rewarded for memorizing passages of the bible and are scorned for having interests that might be deemed "secular". This basic conditioning narrows the scope of possible exploration from a very young age and simply compounds into adulthood. The child begins to select, engage with, and recreate these initial conditions into their own life as they become adults. Obviously, from the outsiders perspective, this is quite absurd and is basically a form of indoctrination. But from the religious perspective, this is a good thing. The concept is inspired by passages like 1 Corinthians 1:18-27, where the Apostle Paul talks about the "foolishness of the cross" and how God's wisdom is often seen as foolishness by the world. They are essentially living a godly life, over and above the inferior forms of worldly knowledge. Note that engagement with biblical material is never from a critical, academic, or analytical perspective. It is never comparative, and rarely engages with alternative forms of Christianity. It is mainly devotional; assuming the truth of it's content. It is also "God Approved", who cares if your critical faculties are never developed if you have the religious community affirming that God is happy with your "spiritual commitments". When individuals are taught that true wisdom lies in what seems foolish by worldly standards, they are discouraged from questioning or critically analyzing their beliefs, as doing so could be seen as relying on "worldly" wisdom rather than divine truth. As we have seen before, "Worldly" is simply a synonym for "demonic", since according to many theologies, Satan is currently controlling the world. This has an amplifying effect that insulates belief even more securely from external sources of influence. Critical thinking often involves questioning, doubting, and seeking evidence. However, the concept leads believers to view doubt and questioning as signs of weak faith, encouraging a more uncritical acceptance of religious teachings. Combined with communal reinforcement, "foolishness for Christ" is a factor that literally terminates thought. It is simply an extension of faith. Thinking about this process from a systems perspective might illuminate what's going on. Consider this diagram that describes the process:

Ok so what is going on here? You have the external world of information sources that is filtered to some degree by religious authorities. This can differ depending on the degree of fundamentalism. "Engagement with sources" is a black box that describes how someone might be consuming the information. The output, or unit of measure, might be in the form of discussions with youth leaders, religious elders, priests, and even the non-religious community. They assess whether you are sufficiently "foolish". In the event they deem you "foolish", this positively reinforces your current style of engagement with your filtered information sources. You might even become more zealous because communal reinforcement typically creates a rewarding feeling. In the event you are not sufficiently foolish, you either readjust your filtering mechanism and/or readjust your engagement strategy so that your output signals are acceptable to whoever is giving you feedback. This obviously has an impact on the development of your fundamental beliefs at a young age. Eventually, you reproduce these dynamics. Over time, the consistent message that true faith requires embracing what seems foolish can lead individuals to internalize the idea that critical thinking is incompatible with spiritual maturity, thus perpetuating a cycle of uncritical belief.

The veneration of actions or beliefs that appear irrational creates an environment where irrationality itself becomes sanctified. This leads to the dismissal of critical thinking as unnecessary or even spiritually dangerous, reinforcing a cycle where questioning or seeking logical coherence is frowned upon. By glorifying what is beyond human understanding (i.e., the mysteries of faith), the concept creates a mystique around certain doctrines or practices that discourages scrutiny or alternative interpretations, thereby limiting intellectual exploration. This leads to the second topic I wanted to cover; thought terminating tendencies. If we think about some standards of "good thinking", we might consider the Paul & Elder Framework:

Let's ask ourselves, is "Foolishness for Christ" compatible with the standards of intellectual rigor listed above? Obviously not. If we go down the list of standards one by one, none of these are considered to be important. Let's take one example; Logicalness. Do proponents of the Trinity seem to care that a pillar of their belief system is literally a contradiction? Many criticisms like this are simply written off however, since the content is inherently mystically and necessarily cannot be subject to analysis. This is when the thought terminating tendencies begin to arise (or bullshit apologetics). Thought-terminating clichés are actually considered barriers to critical thinking and arise out of this disdain for "worldly" knowledge. Thought-terminating clichés are phrases or slogans used to shut down debate or critical thinking, often by simplifying complex issues into easily digestible, emotionally charged statements. In religious contexts, these clichés can discourage questioning and reinforce adherence to established beliefs. Here are just a few that pop up literally all the time:

"God works in mysterious ways.": This phrase is often used to explain or dismiss events that are difficult to understand, discouraging further inquiry or questioning.
"It's God's will.": This phrase is used to end discussions about why something happened, suggesting that it is beyond human understanding or questioning.
"The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.": This slogan discourages interpretation or critical examination of scripture, promoting a rigid acceptance of literal interpretations.
"Just have faith.": This phrase is used to suggest that questioning or seeking evidence is unnecessary, as faith alone is sufficient.
"Who are we to question God?": This statement implies that human beings are not in a position to question or challenge divine authority, thus shutting down any attempt at critical thinking.
"The Lord works in mysterious ways.": Similar to "God works in mysterious ways," this phrase suggests that trying to understand or question divine actions is futile.
"Only God can judge.": This phrase is often used to avoid accountability or to end a conversation about someone's actions or beliefs, implying that human judgment is irrelevant.
"God never gives you more than you can handle.": This cliché is used to encourage endurance and acceptance of difficult situations without questioning why they occur.
"Everything happens for a reason.": This phrase suggests that all events, no matter how random or tragic, have a divine purpose, thereby discouraging further examination of the causes or consequences.
"If you just pray about it, God will provide the answer.": This implies that prayer alone is sufficient for resolving issues or making decisions, discouraging practical problem-solving or seeking advice.
"The devil is testing you.": This statement is used to explain challenges or doubts as a spiritual test, often redirecting focus from resolving the issue to resisting temptation.
"Let go and let God.": This phrase suggests that one should stop trying to control or think about a situation and instead leave it entirely in God's hands.
"This is a test of your faith.": This cliché frames difficulties or doubts as tests from God, often leading individuals to suppress questions or concerns.
"God has a plan.": Similar to "It's God's will," this phrase is used to explain away difficult or confusing situations by attributing them to a divine plan that should not be questioned.
"You just need to believe.": This phrase implies that belief alone is the solution, discouraging further exploration or understanding.
"Satan is trying to deceive you.": This is used to dismiss doubts or conflicting beliefs as the work of Satan, effectively shutting down further thought or discussion.
"God's ways are higher than our ways.": This phrase implies that divine logic is beyond human comprehension, discouraging attempts to understand or question religious teachings.
"You just need to trust God's timing.": This phrase is often used to dismiss concerns about delays or unmet expectations, suggesting that questioning or impatience is a lack of faith.
"The Bible is clear.": This statement is used to end discussions by asserting that there is no room for interpretation or debate on a particular issue.
"Don’t lean on your own understanding.": Taken from Proverbs 3:5, this phrase is often used to discourage reliance on logic or critical thinking in favor of blind faith.

There is a clear theme arising from this list: do not think. I think one of the worst aspects of this is that some people actually think these are legitimate and thoughtful responses. They are so deluded by the ideology that vacuous statements somehow carry meaning.

These types of cliches are a function of a culture that is strongly anti-intellectual and anti-rational. In the section above about epistemic traps, we discussed cognitive mechanisms that create epistemic bubbles, which are foundational for dogmatic/conspiratorial thinking. In addition to cognitive mechanisms, there are second order social mechanisms that reinforce these bubbles. There is a culture of ignorance, especially in the United States, that is downright hostile to critical thinking. I think it fundamentally can be traced back to this "Foolishness for Christ" phenomenon. Religious anti-rationalism is a stance or belief system within religious thought that places less value on reason, logic, and empirical evidence in understanding the world. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of faith, spiritual experience, and divine revelation as superior or even exclusive sources of truth. This approach often involves a skeptical or dismissive attitude toward the use of human reason when it conflicts with religious teachings or doctrines. It fuels the anti-intellectualism within the country and is incredibly difficult to penetrate and escape from.

The prevalence, rate, and frequency of thought stopping phrases is a good indication of how ideologically totalizing a world-view is, and subsequently how difficult it can be to remove yourself from such a system. I think it's at least one measure of how free people are within that system to critically assess their beliefs. In Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, Robert Jay Lifton defines these as:

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized, and easily expressed. They become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.

It is often said that "Christianity has withstood the test of time", implying that the truth of it's doctrine must be obvious. This is yet again, another thought terminating cliche, and highlights just how entrenching the ideology can be. Many ideologies have persisted, not because they survived criticism, but because they have built in mechanisms that prevent you from questioning in the first place. Thought terminating tendencies are just one of these mechanisms. The truth of the matter is that it has not withstood the test of time, it has avoided the test, and in many cases cheated the test by creating a culture that values belief over knowledge, faith over rationality, unjustified certainty over doubt, and hearsay over sound methodology. In his book, Lifton outlines the Either Criteria of Thought Reform. They seem to be, quite undoubtedly, aspects of many religions:

Milieu Control. The group or its leaders controls information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
Mystical Manipulation. The group manipulates experiences that appear spontaneous to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows a reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.
Demand for Purity. The group constantly exhorts members to view the world as black and white, conform to the group ideology, and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
Confession. The group defines sins that members should confess either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; the leaders discuss and exploit members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults".
Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.
Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinate to the sacred science; members must deny or reinterpret any contrary experiences to fit the group ideology.
Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious, and must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.

Tying this back to my main purpose of this blog post; I seek to explain various mechanisms that propagate the belief system. These are but a few more that I've observed to be significant across different communities in the United States.

Motivated Skepticism, Sunk Cost Fallacy, and "Well isn't it possible that....."

I've grouped these together because they share in common a fundamental process of rationalization that insulates the believer from counterevidence or disconfirming evidence. This is combined with the fact that, existing social communities reinforce such rationalization processes, sometimes even rewarding believers for rationalizing. What is motivated skepticism? More broadly, it is a subset of motivated reasoning. Peter Ditto is a social psychologist specializing in this research. According to him:

Motivated reasoning is a term coined by the late social psychologist Ziva Kunda to describe how the way we process information can be affected by our goals and desires. A core interest of the HCL is to examine the ways that affect and intuition influence, and often bias, judgment. The key challenge to such models is to account for how people “walk the line” between passion and reason, that is, how people can be generally sensitive to data and logic, but adroitly bend (but not break) that logic in ways that often allow them to believe what they want to believe. We are interested in exploring both the process of motivated reasoning and the consequences of motivated reasoning processes for important real-world judgments, such as those involved in health, morality, politics, and the law.

Like the results from the Asch Conformity Experiments, this is a fundamental tendency in all humans and is not distinct to religion. However, as I've alluded to above, there is a strong tendency within religious groups to reinforce this bias. There aren't many known corrective mechanisms within religious communities that dampen the innate tendency; rather, it is highly encouraged, amplified , directed, and rewarded. For example, religiously motivated scientific skepticism is not driven by the same skeptical principles embedded within scientific practice. Rather, the skepticism is motivated by a-priori theological commitments. These can be very subtle and pernicious; often being conflated with other motivating factors such as political beliefs. Rather than lingering on antiquated examples such as Evolutionary Theory, consider Climate Change. Many people misunderstand some of the underlying motivations related to climate change denial. Some think it's purely a politicization of the topic, fundamentally motivated by greed. However, there are strong religious convictions skewing the discourse that can go unrecognized. Some religious individuals and groups have expressed skepticism toward climate science because it conflicts with their beliefs about humanity's relationship with nature, divine providence, or eschatological views (beliefs about the end times). Some religious skeptics believe that climate and environmental conditions are controlled by a divine being and that humans have little or no impact on these processes. They argue that God would not allow catastrophic climate change to occur or that such changes are part of a divine plan. In some cases, religious skeptics believe that the end times are near, rendering concerns about long-term environmental sustainability irrelevant. From this perspective, addressing climate change may be viewed as futile or even as contrary to divine will. These positions would be consistent with a Biblical worldview, since according to scripture, God controls all things.

It's obvious that this form of skepticism is quite different than scientific skepticism. Religiously motivated skepticism is highly coupled with existential and self-identity concepts. This has been studied at length. For example, according to "Not all skepticism is “healthy” skepticism: Theorizing accuracy- and identity-motivated skepticism toward social media misinformation":

Fostering skepticism has been seen as key to addressing misinformation on social media. This article reveals that not all skepticism is “healthy” skepticism by theorizing, measuring, and testing the effects of two types of skepticism toward social media misinformation: accuracy- and identity-motivated skepticism. A two-wave panel survey experiment shows that when people’s skepticism toward social media misinformation is driven by accuracy motivations, they are less likely to believe in congruent misinformation later encountered. They also consume more mainstream media, which in turn reinforces accuracy-motivated skepticism. In contrast, when skepticism toward social media misinformation is driven by identity motivations, people not only fall for congruent misinformation later encountered, but also disregard platform interventions that flag a post as false. Moreover, they are more likely to see social media misinformation as favoring opponents and intentionally avoid news on social media, both of which form a vicious cycle of fueling more identity-motivated skepticism.

I deliberately bolded these phrases because they exemplify the distinction. "Healthy Skepticism" is driven by intellectual standards, such as accuracy. "Unhealthy skepticism" is the motivated reasoning caused by some perceived attack on an individuals identity. Within Christianity, "to believe" is synonymous with their sense of identity. If you are at all familiar with this community, there is a constant affirmation to place your identity "in Christ". What follows transitively is that, a perceived attack on their belief is an attack on Christ. This forms a vicious cycle of close-mindedness.

This sort of research is actually reproducible and extends back a few decades. A 1979 study "Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence" identifies this tendency. Goal-oriented (directional) motivated skepticism is a general phenomenon and typically covaries with strength of religious conviction (see Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection). In Motivated Skepticism (Jeanne Hagenbach):

We experimentally study how individuals read strategically-transmitted information when they have preferences over what they will learn. Subjects play disclosure games in which Receivers should interpret messages skeptically. We vary whether the state that Senders communicate about is ego-relevant or neutral for Receivers, and whether skeptical beliefs are aligned or not with what Receivers prefer believing. Compared to neutral settings, skepticism is significantly lower when it is self-threatening, and not enhanced when it is self-serving. These results shed light on a new channel that individuals can use to protect their beliefs in communication situations: they exercise skepticism in a motivated way, that is, in a way that depends on the desirability of the conclusions that skeptical inferences lead to. We propose two behavioral models that can generate motivated skepticism. In one model, the Receiver freely manipulates his beliefs after having made skeptical inferences. In the other, the Receiver reasons about evidence in steps and the depth of his reasoning is motivated.

The author reports similar findings. This is a 2024 study, so results have been quite stable for almost half a century. I'm not going to elaborate on the details of these studies. Rather, I want to argue that religious groups amplify this tendency, and have no intention on dampening it. Here are a few more studies you might find interesting:

Motivated vs. Skeptical Beliefs by Jeanne Hagenbach
Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions by Peter Ditto
Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs by Geoffrey L Cohen
Anti-Intellectualism, Anti-elitism, and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus by Eric Merkley

Apologetics might be the paradigmatic example of motivated reasoning, and hence motivated skepticism of anything perceived to conflict with scripture. I am not making this up, apologists are actually very upfront with this. From A Brief Course on Apologetics, the author writes:

Apologetics deals with answering critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. The purpose of this class is helping the Christian to "always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks them to give an account for the hope they have".

The quote there refers to the biblical passage 1 Peter 3:15. In other words, to be a good Christian is to reason towards motivated ends; to evangelize. This sort of motivated reasoning extends back to Anselm of Canterbury with his phrase "Fides quaerens intellectum", or "Faith Seeking Understanding". This is an explicit endorsement of motivated reasoning; the belief in biblical dogma is the starting point, anything conflicting with it must be false. There is a great video titled "The Apologetic industrial complex" that really dives into this in depth. One obvious indication of motivated reasoning comes from these seminaries who make employment conditional on signing a professed statement of faith. So in other words, you start with the conclusion. There is a strong institutionalized tendency to motivationally reason towards the desired conclusion of theism. We also see a significant lack of AOT (Actively Open-Minded Thinking) and in many instances outright hostility to the concept. AOT is typically seen as the remedy to Motivated Reasoning. It is a cognitive style characterized by the willingness to consider new information, viewpoints, and evidence, even when they challenge one's existing beliefs or assumptions. It involves actively seeking out diverse perspectives, critically evaluating evidence, and being willing to change one's mind in light of new or better information. AOT contrasts with more closed-minded or dogmatic thinking, where individuals tend to reject or ignore information that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs. Here is a bullet point list of features I think characterize the AOT. Notice that it significantly overlaps with the intellectual standards applied by critical thinkers:

Recognition of Fallibility: A key aspect of AOT is the acknowledgment of one's own cognitive biases and limitations. Actively open-minded thinkers recognize that they could be wrong and that their knowledge is always subject to revision based on new evidence. They understand that certainty is often unattainable and accept ambiguity and uncertainty as part of the decision-making process.
Desire for Accuracy Over Confirmation: Instead of seeking information that confirms their beliefs (confirmation bias), actively open-minded thinkers prioritize finding the most accurate and reliable information, even if it contradicts their current understanding. This involves a preference for evidence-based reasoning and a commitment to finding the truth rather than simply defending a particular viewpoint.
Reflective Thinking: Actively open-minded thinkers engage in reflective thinking, which involves consciously pausing to consider reasons for and against a particular belief or decision. This self-reflection can help reduce impulsive or emotionally driven judgments. They often ask themselves critical questions such as "What evidence would prove me wrong?" or "Why might someone disagree with me?" to test the robustness of their views.
Openness to Change: An essential feature of AOT is a genuine willingness to change one's mind when presented with compelling evidence or arguments. This flexibility is crucial for adapting to new information and avoiding dogmatism. Actively open-minded thinkers do not view changing their mind as a weakness or failure but as a natural part of intellectual growth and learning.
Curiosity and Intellectual Humility: Curiosity drives actively open-minded thinkers to explore new ideas and learn about different perspectives. They are naturally inclined to ask questions and seek deeper understanding. Intellectual humility involves recognizing that one's knowledge is limited and that others may have valuable insights or information. It is a key trait of actively open-minded thinkers, who understand that learning is an ongoing process.
Avoidance of Cognitive Biases: Actively open-minded thinkers are aware of common cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and the availability heuristic. They consciously work to avoid or minimize these biases in their thinking. They use strategies like considering alternative hypotheses, seeking disconfirming evidence, and engaging in discussions with people who hold different views to mitigate the effects of biases.
Focus on Process Over Outcome: Actively open-minded thinkers prioritize the reasoning process itself over reaching a particular conclusion. They are less concerned with being "right" and more concerned with whether they are using sound methods and reasoning to arrive at their beliefs.
Search Satisfaction and Reflection: Actively open minded thinkers take enough time to reflect on evidence and options. They do not prematurely stop looking for evidence once they have found something that satisfies their biases.
Consistent Application of Principles: Actively open minded thinkers consistently use standards of evidence, they do not special plead. They sustain a high level of open-mindedness during the search and evaluation phase.

You can measure AOT through surveys and questionnaires. In Actively Open-Minded Thinking and Its Measurement Keith E. Stanovich introduces a method for measuring the concept. From what I can gather, many of these surveys roughly ask similar questions. Here are a sample of questions, where (R) indicates a reverse question:

True experts are willing to admit to themselves and others that they are uncertain or that they don't know the answer. (1)
People should take into consideration evidence that goes against conclusions they favor. (2)
Being undecided or unsure is the result of muddled thinking. (3R)
People should revise their conclusions in response to relevant new information. (4)
Changing your mind is a sign of weakness. (5R)
People should search actively for reasons why they might be wrong. (6)
It is OK to ignore evidence against your established beliefs. (7R)
It is important to be loyal to your beliefs even when evidence is brought to bear against them. (8R)
There is nothing wrong with being undecided about many issues. (9)
When faced with a puzzling question, we should try to consider more than one possible answer before reaching a conclusion. (10)
It is best to be confident in a conclusion even when we have good reasons to question it. (11R)

We must ask ourselves, does the institution of apologetics seek to carry out AOT? They already acknowledge they are pursuing a particular conclusion and are dedicated to one outcome. Is it a self-affirming or self corrective institution? Is it self critical or outwardly critical? Are they prepared to change their mind or revise beliefs in light of new evidence? Do they give fair consideration to contrary evidence and explanations? Is there any evidence, even hypothetically, that would lead them to alter their conclusions (defeasibility test)? Are they conclusion neutral? I think the answer to these questions are obvious. Apologetic serve similar ideological functions to think tanks; institutionalized motivational reasoning for specific objectives.

Okay, but how does motivated skepticism reinforce belief? Why is it not just a symptom of the belief? Well, it creates a feedback dynamic that strengthens individual and communal belief. You can think of it as not just a symptom of ingroup/outgroup bias, but a causally relevant factor that feeds back into these group dynamics. From the perspective of the individual engaging in motivated reasoning, the backfire effect is relevant when explaining belief reinforcement. Put simply, when presented with evidence that may debunk someone's belief, the backfire effect describes a situation where the beliefs are actually strengthened. In the context of religiously motivated reasoning, Worldview Backfire Effect describes the reinforcing process that occurs when someone's world view feels threatened. However, the empirical literature seems to be mixed on whether a strengthening actually occurs. Ad hoc conversations with someone might lead you to suspect its existence but demonstrable generalizations are lacking. This is why I think the community aspects are important to highlight. We must remember that motivated reasoning is not entirely irrational, it is just highly selective with it's information sources, is not receptive to competing sources, and in some instances it can be very emotionally charged. The result is a strengthening of the echo-chamber someone is apart of, and a reaffirmation of their position. You can think of it as a dynamic process that works through social feedback.

Take a simple example of biased interpretation of evidence. For example, if a study provides evidence against a person’s belief, they might scrutinize the study's methodology, sample size, or funding sources to find reasons to dismiss it. In contrast, if the study supports their belief, they may accept its findings without much critical examination. This biased interpretation strengthens their original belief especially within the context of community support. On an individual level, someone might be slightly inclined to critically assess the study that supports their beliefs, but might be shunned for doing so on the communal level. Furthermore, there might be an incentive to present studies to the community that reinforces their belief, usually in some form of praise or affirmation. Knowing that the community will respond positively to the critical presentation of the outgroup will probably influence the content someone is willing to present. From the perspective of the community, they now only see a filtered subset of information that is critical of the outgroup but praises the ingroup. If you present contrary research charitably or reflect critically on research favorable to the ingroup, other group members might become skeptical of you, perhaps assuming something is wrong with you; or you are not on their side. This dynamic strengthens and reinforces the existing belief. In such environments, dissenting voices are marginalized, and beliefs are reinforced through repeated affirmation by peers, media, or community leaders, further entrenching existing views.

Motivated reasoning reinforces existing beliefs through a combination of cognitive biases, emotional investment, social influences, and psychological defense mechanisms. By selectively seeking, interpreting, and recalling information that supports their current beliefs, individuals create a self-reinforcing cycle that makes it harder to change their minds, even in the face of strong contradictory evidence. This process helps maintain a coherent and stable worldview but often at the cost of objectivity and open-mindedness.

How does sunk cost fallacy relate to motivated reasoning? The Sunk Cost Fallacy is our tendency to follow through on something that we’ve already invested heavily in (be it time, money, effort, emotional energy, etc.), even when giving up is clearly a better idea. It is related to Commitment bias, also known as the escalation of commitment, which describes our tendency to remain committed to our past behaviors, particularly those exhibited publicly, even if they do not have desirable outcomes. In the context of motivated reasoning towards some objective that has proven to be fruitless, someone might escalate commitment, doubling down on their motivated reasoning even further. In the context of theism, the concept of sunk cost should be clear. When someone was raised in a Church or religious community, their self identity has been crafted around the world view. Perhaps they have even made public declarations of faith, taken on leadership roles, or built a career around the religion (e.g., as a religious leader, teacher, or community organizer). They may have even married someone else of "equal yoke", further signaling their commitment to the community and god. Many people fully commit themselves to the ideology. But at some point, doubts might occur. Cognitive dissonance might occur when, some tragedy happens, and they cannot understand why a loving god would allow that despite their faithfulness. They reread the Book of Job to find council. They consult apologetics, immersing themselves within as many theodicies as possible. They have dedicated their entire lives to this; deconversion normally takes years. They engage with as much confirming information as possible, consulting their community elders for reaffirmation, crying out to god for guidance. In the process of consulting reaffirming information, they might be satisfied. This ties back to the "search satisfaction and reflection" point I listed above. Apologetics serves this niche community; they provide material that the believer can memorize, possibly alleviating the doubt. But for others, their doubts begin to spiral. In the process of reaffirming their beliefs, they are inadvertently exposed to strong opposing arguments, other individuals who are dissatisfied with apologetic explanations, and possibly a sense of detachment from god. Despite these doubts, the individual feels torn because leaving the faith would mean losing much of what they have invested: relationships, reputation, financial contributions, and the sense of purpose or meaning they have derived from their religious identity. Even though they are no longer certain of their beliefs, they decide to stay in the religion and continue practicing its rituals and adhering to its doctrines. Their decision is largely driven by the desire not to "waste" the years of devotion, the social capital, and the emotional investment they have already made. They might think, "I’ve given so much of my life to this faith; I can't just walk away now," or "Leaving would mean admitting that I’ve wasted all these years believing in something that might not be true." Even deconstructing their beliefs might be off limits. They have spent so much time in this particular denomination, they can't possibly convert to something absurd like Catholicism. To justify staying, the individual may engage in motivated reasoning. They might start selectively interpreting or downplaying their doubts, focusing on the positive aspects of their religious experience, or emphasizing any small pieces of evidence or experiences that support their continued belief. They may also avoid information or discussions that challenge their faith, preferring to remain in environments where their beliefs are constantly reinforced. They could convince themselves that their doubts are a test of faith, that they need to be more devout, or that they haven't fully understood the teachings yet, which is why they are experiencing doubts. These rationalizations help them avoid the emotional discomfort of cognitive dissonance, which arises from the conflict between their doubts and their desire to stay committed. After all, "god works in mysterious ways".

This leads to my last point: "Well, isn't it possible that". I initially came across this idea in an interview with Josh Bowen where he was describing how people attempt to reconcile biblical contradictions such as the death of Judas. If you are not familiar with this, essentially different books of the bible describe different renditions of his death that are mutually incompatible. Many Christians get around these discrepancies by constructing elaborate stories, usually prefaced with "well, isn't it possible that...", that attempt to reconcile the discrepancies. A light went off in my head. I realized that this simple little phrase is much more prevalent in the community once you begin to think about it. I see it pop up everywhere in conversation. The assumption behind it is that, if something has not been proven to be impossible, then ipso-facto its highly probable. You will see this everywhere. In the context of a theodicy, "well isn't it possible that god has a good reason for allowing suffering". In a simple discussion about the existence of god, "well, isn't it possible that there is something else out there beyond us". This line of reason implicitly means: "I don't care about your line of inquiry, I still believe my position". It is simply a manifestation of motivated skepticism. Obviously, mere possibility is typically insufficient for belief or action. Right now it is 7PM in my California suburb. It is entirely possible that, if I step outside, I will be mauled by a bear. There is nothing logically, physically, or metaphysically impossible about that scenario. It's obviously highly improbable. Should I base my decision to go for an evening walk on this possibility? This is the situation we find ourselves in many times when engaging with theists. The underlying factor is motivated skepticism. "Well, isn't it possible that" is subtly powerful in redirecting believers who are doubting back into the belief system. They are taught not to trust their own understanding; to have faith. By invoking possibility, you are essentially prompting believers to ignore, downplay, disregard, and distrust the fact that, from the perspective of any decision maker, mere possibility is quite insufficient in the majority of cases. However, there is an obvious asymmetry. "Well, isn't it possible that" the entire biblical canon was fabricated by the Roman government for political control, is simply ruled out a-priori as a possibility. This is quintessential motivated skepticism; allow for absurd possibilities if they serve to reaffirm your preferred conclusion and do not allow very reasonable possibilities that would undermine your preferred conclusion.

Self Serving Bias and Codependency

I'd like to stop and consider the absurdity of miracles. Every time I come to church, we go through a routine of praising god for alleged “answer to prayers” aka miracles. We also cover rather tragic events that have unfolded, being encouraged to pray for the people going through hardship. It dawned on me, that what we see here is quite an absurd selection process god must be using when deciding what miraculous things to do. For example, we were told a story about a person who had some very bad cancer. The chemo ended up working, and this is interpreted as an answer to prayer. The pastor proceeds by saying “miracles happen all the time, we just don’t pay attention to those lesser miracles”. But not 2 minutes later we were told a story about a tragic event, an entire family died in a car crash on their way to church. There seems to be a strange tension between allowing/answering miracles/prayers we find mundane, while tragedies like this happen all the time. If god is in control of everything, then why such a striking imbalance, selectiveness, and arbitrariness about answering prayers and intervening miraculously to the benefit of humanity?

I think this reveals a very deep self serving bias embedded within the Abrahamic world view. A true believing Christian will pray for something mundane, let’s say a job promotion. They get the promotion, interpreting it as an answer to prayer. This would imply that god looked at their situation, and decided to help. He chose this person for some reason, giving them a raise, when they may have already had all of the essentials needed for living. Meanwhile, every year, 5 million children under the age of 5 die. In many cases very brutal deaths. This is remarkably lower than in previous years, in the 90s humanity hovered around 12 million deaths annually. Quite a miracle, that god would choose to answer your prayer, while ignoring all of the prayers petitioned by people who were the parents of those children. You must be quite special.

I’m sure a large subset of those who lost children despite praying to the Christian god, have an explanation for this. God must work in mysterious ways. Very mysterious, indeed, if mundane answers to prayer are given all the time to first world citizens who just happen to have access to phenomenal institutions designed to avoid such tragedies. In church, we are constantly told “trust in god” and “not lean on our own understandings”, and yet, the countries that have seemed to lean on their own understandings, by way of actually addressing the problem through sustained research, have made significant ground in identifying the causes of these tragedies, and developing systems to reduce their prevalence. Quite interesting that there is an obviously geographical component determining the distribution of these fatalities. But no, god loves you, that’s why he helped you out. But hey wouldn’t you know, god loves them too, which is why he didn’t intervene. It seems like god is in a win win situation here, and that no matter the outcome, it’s by definition a miracle.

Since tautologically, god is good, every action must be in some way, good. This means that there is some higher order good, for allowing tragedies. This essentially means that, tragedies are good, since by definition there must be some higher order good we are unaware of. This implies that tragedies are in some sick sense, miracles disguised, we just are too “limited” to understand gods reasons. But we must have faith, that this was somehow good. Quite an absurd view. It essentially reduces everything to a miracle, which makes the concept vacuous. If a miracle is “something very good happening” but can also be “something very bad happening”, then everything is a miracle; and we know that if a concept is all encompassing, it fails to represent anything.

The very concept of a “miracle” is a mess, let alone the problem of identifying them in practice. “God working in mysterious ways” is essentially an ideological trap that prevents the believer from identifying fundamental flaws in the theory itself. It’s one of the many tactics institutions use to retain believers and propagate the belief system. The obvious cognitive dissonance believers might be struggling with is reframed as something “a Christian must go through for spiritual maturity”, they are encouraged to “pray more” and “just have faith" that the answer will “miraculously reveal Itself to you”. Quite amazing to use revelation, something miraculous, to explain away obvious inconsistencies. I’ve written about this before, what counts as a genuine revelation is obviously impossible to determine. Fundamentally, it is a bankrupt epistemology. Therefore, the perpetual cycle of belief preservation, continues. “Praying hard and having faith in god” to understand a tragedy, means “wait for a miracle to understand why god is weirdly selective with his miracles and answers to prayer”. This prayer/faith loop truly is absurd.

Earlier I mentioned this is a very self serving aspect of the belief system. Christians can genuinely feel like they are chosen, made distinct, while others suffer immensely. What is a self serving bias and how does it contribute to the propagation of a world view? It’s quite obvious if you haven’t thought about it at first. Theistic world views tend to be egocentric. Many of them place the holder of the world view, in the preeminent position. Judaism does this by claiming they are gods chose people. Christians want to avoid this by saying salvation is open to all, but yet it is highly exclusive and conditional on who can achieve gods Grace. It’s pretty much built in to many Protestant traditions, gods “Grace” is a gift, it’s nothing we work for. “Faith” is given to us by the grace of god. And yet I am still somehow responsible for not having faith. The Christian world view elevates itself among any other alternative, demanding submission, by proclaiming they have the truth without any substantiation. We can see that self serving elements are embedded within the view. A massive indicator of this is the mere fact that many Christians conflate their identity with the propositions underlying their faith. When questioning some doctrine, for example, many Christians will feel personally attacked. Rather than differentiating their identity from their world view, they conflate the two; the "self" literally becomes intertwined with the truth claims underlying the belief system. Questioning the claims means questioning their identity, which means the very concept of "truth" is something intertwined with their sense of self (God "is" truth, they have god on their side, so therefore they have the truth; and you are either stupid or evil if you disagree). To question the truth of Christianity is to essentially call into question the persons identity. But how does it relate to the situation I presented earlier with regard to prayer? By questioning whether the alleged miracle was genuine, we are questioning whether god places some individual in a privileged position relative to the rest of the petitionary prayers. Remember, millions of children die annually, which means god chooses to answer your mundane prayers over prioritizing the life of a child who has a terminal illness. But since god is always right, it was somehow right of him to prioritize you over them. If I question this decision, I am questioning whether god should privilege you above others, which means I am questioning whether your actions have warranted your special treatment. I am essentially calling into question your worth.

Self-serving bias refers to the tendency for individuals to attribute their successes to internal, personal factors while blaming external factors for their failures. This bias helps preserve self-esteem and maintain a positive self-image. For example, if someone gets a promotion at work, they might attribute it to their hard work and talent; however, if they don’t get the promotion, they might blame office politics or an unfair boss. Self-serving bias often shapes how individuals interpret religious beliefs, events, and outcomes in ways that reinforce their worldview or self-perception. Here’s how it might manifest:

Attributing Positive Outcomes to Divine Favor: When good things happen, people may view them as rewards for their faith, moral behavior, or religious devotion. For example, a religious person might credit God for their success or blessings, framing the event as validation of their piety.
Blaming Negative Outcomes on External Forces: Conversely, when bad things occur, individuals may attribute them to external factors such as evil forces, a test from God, or societal immorality, rather than reflecting on personal responsibility or actions.
Selective Interpretation of Religious Teachings: People may focus on aspects of their faith that align with their successes or values while downplaying teachings that might critique their behavior. For instance, someone may interpret their prosperity as a sign of being in God’s favor, even if their wealth was amassed unethically. They might interpret someone as being "unmotivated" if they are poor.
Cognitive Dissonance Reduction: Self-serving bias can help believers reconcile conflicting experiences with their faith. If prayers are answered, it’s seen as evidence of God’s intervention. If prayers are not answered, they might explain it as part of a divine plan, rather than questioning their faith or actions.
Moral Superiority: People may use self-serving bias to justify viewing their own religious beliefs and practices as superior. For example, they might attribute societal issues to the absence of their religion in public life while ignoring similar issues within their own religious communities.

Since this post is mainly about the system dynamics of religion, lets see how this tendency tends to reinforce adherence to the belief system. Self-serving biases reinforce belief systems by helping individuals maintain their worldview, self-esteem, and sense of control in the face of complex or contradictory information. These biases work as psychological mechanisms that filter and reinterpret experiences in ways that align with and strengthen existing beliefs. Here’s how this reinforcement occurs:

1. Selective Attribution of Outcomes

Success as Internal: When people achieve success, they often attribute it to personal traits or the correctness of their beliefs. For example, someone might believe their success stems from their work ethic, intelligence, or adherence to their belief system. "Evidence" for this interpretation, can be in the form of attributed something to the intervention of god for the benefit of the believer.
Failure as External: Conversely, failures are blamed on external factors (e.g., bad luck, unfair circumstances) rather than flaws in their beliefs. This prevents disillusionment and keeps their belief system intact.
Example: A person may credit their spiritual practices for their good health but blame external circumstances, such as environmental pollution, for illness—rather than questioning the efficacy of those practices. We see this with Christian Science.

2. Confirmation Bias

Self-serving bias often works alongside confirmation bias, where individuals seek evidence that supports their beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts them.
By attributing favorable outcomes to their belief system, people create self-confirming loops: they believe their system "works," which reinforces their commitment to it.
Example: A religious individual might see answered prayers as proof of their faith’s validity, while dismissing unanswered prayers as "part of God’s plan" rather than questioning the belief itself. If someone else is suffering, it must be because of their moral character.

3. Justification of Morality and Values

People use self-serving biases to justify the moral or ethical superiority of their belief system, especially when it aligns with their personal behavior or identity.
This helps them feel validated in their choices and avoid cognitive dissonance between their actions and beliefs.
Example: A person who follows a dietary restriction due to religious beliefs might attribute their good health to divine wisdom in the rule, ignoring scientific explanations for similar benefits.

4. Resilience to Counterarguments

When confronted with challenges or criticism, self-serving bias allows individuals to deflect responsibility and reinterpret evidence to favor their existing beliefs.
This resilience makes belief systems more resistant to change and reinforces a sense of certainty.
Example: A political or ideological group might attribute economic successes to their ideology while blaming failures on external interference, such as opposition parties or societal factors.

5. Maintenance of Identity and Group Cohesion

Belief systems are often tied to personal and group identity. Self-serving biases reinforce group cohesion by justifying in-group successes and downplaying failures. This strengthens the group’s shared worldview and discourages dissent.
Example: A community may attribute their prosperity to their collective adherence to religious or cultural principles while dismissing external factors like government support or luck. We commonly see this argument put forward as a means of explaining western dominance.

6. Perception of Control and Meaning

Self-serving bias helps individuals perceive the world as orderly and meaningful, even when faced with random or uncontrollable events.
By attributing outcomes to their actions or beliefs, people feel empowered and less vulnerable to uncertainty.
Example: Someone might believe their safety during a natural disaster was due to their prayer or lifestyle choices, reinforcing the belief that their actions control outcomes.

Reinforcement Cycle

Positive Outcomes → Attributed to belief system → Strengthens faith in belief.
Negative Outcomes → Attributed to external factors → Belief system remains unchallenged.
Selective Interpretation → Favors belief-consistent evidence → Creates a feedback loop.

Someone might question this by saying "I take personal responsibility when something bad happens". They might also say "Hey, I don't just blame others for their misfortunes". Which I would say "Hey, thanks for mentioning that, there is an explanation for that as well". Remember, we are referring to belief persistence. Here is how I would describe the dynamics of this scenario:

Another Reinforcement Cycle

Internal Negative Outcomes → Attributed to Lack of Prayer → Strengthens faith in belief.
External Negative Outcomes (someone else suffering) → Believer wants to help → Prayer is a means of helping → If the situation gets better, it's because god answered prayers → Belief system remains unchallenged.
External Negative Outcomes (someone else suffering) → Believer wants to help → Prayer is a means of helping → If the situation remains unchanged, it's because you have not prayed hard enough or "god has plans that must ultimately be good" → Belief system remains unchallenged.
External Positive Outcomes (someone else is successful) → Are they a Christian? → Yes? → Evidence of the truth of the belief system
External Positive Outcomes (someone else is successful) → Are they a Christian? → No? → This must be Satan working in their lives or they are actually a Christian deep down → Evidence of the truth of the belief system

By shielding belief systems from scrutiny and maintaining self-esteem, self-serving biases provide a psychological foundation that allows beliefs to persist—even in the face of contrary evidence. This can be beneficial for emotional stability but may also hinder growth, critical thinking, or openness to alternative perspectives. Like I mentioned before, this is nothing unique to a specific religion like Christianity. It's common across many belief systems. However, monotheistic religions seem to lack any mechanism that can dampen this tendency. Religious egocentrism can result in the belief that one’s faith is inherently better, truer, or more enlightened than others'; this makes it even more likely for beliefs to persist since the possibility of being wrong is dismissed a-priori. This is mostly the case because an individual believer will likely believe their beliefs are consistent with and justified by god. Consequently, people can become firmly entrenched in their dogma. The egocentric bias and self-serving bias work together to create a psychological framework that sustains and reinforces religious belief by centering the individual’s perspective while interpreting experiences in ways that protect self-esteem, affirm existing beliefs, and resist change. Their interplay makes religious beliefs more resilient to doubt or counter-evidence. This resistance to alternative perspectives protects the belief system from doubt, creating a closed feedback loop where only belief-affirming evidence is considered valid. For example, we already considered the dual bias with answered/unanswered prayers, which creates a no-fail system where belief is continuously validated—success reinforces faith, and failure doesn’t challenge it but instead strengthens resolve or trust in the divine. Another example would be the selective interpretation of religious teachings. In fact, this might explain the explosive proliferation of protestant traditions following the reformation. Egocentric tendencies centralize the reader at the center of a cosmic story, while the self-serving bias is at work when selecting a subset of scripture that confirms some theological agenda, usually self affirming, while ignoring scripture that is inconsistent. The interplay between egocentric and self-serving biases creates a positive feedback loop that continually validates and strengthens religious belief:

Egocentrism personalizes religious experiences and centers the individual in the divine narrative.
Self-serving bias ensures that outcomes are interpreted in ways that protect self-esteem and reinforce faith.
Together, these biases make belief systems feel deeply personal, meaningful, and resistant to doubt or external critique.

This psychological framework allows individuals to find consistent affirmation in their religious beliefs, making them emotionally compelling and cognitively resilient to challenge.

I think all of this creates an interesting, yet counterintuitive, type of codependency. Many in monotheistic traditions tend to hold to a very self deprecating world view. For example, in the "Prayer of Humble Access", one of the verses is "We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table". I honestly found this hilarious when I first read it aloud at a Church, but then I looked around and found people feeling incredibly emotionally overwhelmed and empowered. How can this self deprecating view coexist with the self-serving egocentric view as I described above? The reason is because self-serving bias and egocentric bias does not imply an overinflated sense of self worth; rather they denote aspects of behavior. Lets first define the concept. Codependency is a psychological concept referring to a relationship dynamic where one person excessively relies on another for their sense of identity, self-worth, or emotional well-being. We can observe this in quotes such as "Having an identity in Christ"; the idea being that a persons identity is defined by their relationship with god, and that we must reflect that image. Often, it involves a one-sided dependence, where one person continuously gives while the other takes, sometimes in unhealthy or dysfunctional ways. Codependent individuals often seek validation and approval from others to feel valued or loved. This can manifest in unhealthy relationships with the church community someone might be involved in. Those in codependent relationships may suppress their feelings to avoid conflict or rejection. Codependents might stay in unhealthy relationships due to an intense fear of being alone or abandoned; something I've mentioned at length above. Codependent relationships often lack healthy boundaries, with one or both individuals overstepping personal limits. The codependent individual may struggle with self-worth and derive their value from pleasing or taking care of others. For example, People might feel guilty for not contributing to the Church. A person in a relationship continually sacrifices their own needs, hobbies, and desires to support their partners, often at great personal cost. They might even define their interests around the interests of another person. This is closely related to the idea of learned helplessness. In this circumstance, it is related to codependency, in that the dependent person may come to believe they cannot manage their own life, perpetuating their reliance on the caregiver. Codependency within religious systems can manifest in several interconnected ways that reinforce religious beliefs and contribute to the persistence of religion. This phenomenon often involves a reciprocal dynamic where individuals and religious institutions become reliant on each other for emotional, spiritual, and social needs.

Emotional Dependence on Leadership: Followers often rely heavily on religious leaders for guidance, approval, and validation, which can discourage independent thinking. Leaders may derive their sense of purpose and identity from the loyalty and dependence of their followers, perpetuating a cycle of reliance.
Institutional Reinforcement of Dependency: Religious institutions may emphasize doctrines of obedience, submission, or humility, fostering dependence on the institution for moral guidance. Fear-based teachings (e.g., about sin, hell, or divine punishment) can create a sense of vulnerability, driving individuals to cling to the system for protection and security.
Collective Codependency: Communities may enforce norms of conformity, creating social pressure to adhere to religious practices and beliefs. Believers may feel responsible for "saving" others or upholding the faith, reinforcing a collective obligation that binds individuals to the system.

These dynamics reinforce the belief system through the following ways:

Validation of Faith: Codependency ensures a continuous exchange of affirmation between leaders and followers. Leaders validate followers’ adherence, while followers reinforce leaders’ authority, strengthening belief systems on both sides. Shared rituals and collective worship provide emotional highs and a sense of belonging, which validate the faith experience as "real."
Perpetuation of Fear and Reward Dynamics: Dependence on religious teachings to alleviate fear (of sin, damnation, etc.) keeps believers engaged. Promises of eternal reward or spiritual fulfillment maintain adherence, as leaving the system would mean losing these assurances.
In-group Identity Formation: Codependency fosters strong in-group identities, making it emotionally and socially costly to question or leave the religion. The validation of personal struggles or doubts within the religious framework strengthens belief systems, as leaving might imply losing this source of support.

Codependency in religious systems creates a self-sustaining loop of emotional reliance and validation that reinforces beliefs, strengthens communal bonds, and discourages deviation. This dynamic not only upholds the religion but also ensures its persistence by embedding it deeply in the psychological and social fabric of its adherents. There is a relationship between codependency in religious systems and empowerment but it is complex, as religious teachings and practices can simultaneously foster dependency while offering a sense of empowerment. This dynamic is particularly evident in concepts like "strength in God," where individuals derive their sense of worth and power from an external divine source rather than from within themselves. This creates a sort of paradox:

Empowerment Through Dependency: Many religious systems offer teachings that encourage believers to "surrender" their personal control to a higher power, such as God. This surrender can feel empowering because it alleviates the burden of self-reliance, providing a sense of comfort, direction, and meaning. "Strength in God" frames personal resilience as coming not from the individual’s own capacity, but from their connection to the divine. This external source of strength can feel stabilizing in times of crisis or uncertainty. For those struggling with self-doubt, the idea that a powerful deity values and strengthens them can be profoundly affirming.
Dependency as a Barrier to Individual Development: Relying on external sources (God, religious leaders, or community) for self-worth and strength can create a dependency that undermines the development of intrinsic empowerment. People may struggle to believe they have value or strength apart from these sources. Overemphasis on external validation ("God’s approval") can prevent individuals from cultivating internal self-worth or confidence in their own decision-making abilities.
Reinforcement of Learned Helplessness: Teachings that emphasize human frailty or sinfulness without divine intervention can inadvertently foster a sense of helplessness. Believers may internalize the idea that they are inherently weak or incapable without divine support. This can discourage personal growth, as people may attribute their successes to God rather than their own efforts, reducing motivation to build their own skills or independence.

When individuals believe their worth and strength only come through God or religious systems, they may become overly reliant on those structures. This can prevent them from fully realizing their autonomy or personal capabilities. The phrase "strength in God" can sometimes shift the locus of control away from the individual, making them feel powerless in situations where they might otherwise take initiative. The dynamic of finding "strength in God" mirrors the broader codependent relationship between individuals and religious systems. Just as individuals may look to other people for their sense of worth and strength, they may also project these needs onto a divine figure. This dependency reinforces the institution’s role as a mediator between the individual and their sense of empowerment, further entrenching the individual's reliance on the system. When individuals rely exclusively on external sources for validation or strength, they may struggle to function independently. This can lead to a fragile sense of self that collapses without the support of the external source (e.g., a crisis of faith leading to existential despair).

Many religions seem to concretize this codependency even further, by demonizing the idea of self reliance and individualism. They might claim that, these are ultimately rooted in evil/sin, thus strengthening the need to rely on the religious community . Many religious systems discourage self-reliance and individualism, framing them as antithetical to their moral and theological frameworks. By doing so, they reinforce the need for dependence on the religious community, leaders, and a divine power. This dynamic serves to solidify the system's control and perpetuate its influence over adherents. First and most important, these teaching demonization of self-reliance and individualism:

Framing Self-Reliance as Pride or Sin: Many religions teach that self-reliance is a form of hubris or pride, often depicted as one of the greatest sins (e.g., the story of Lucifer's fall in Christianity is often interpreted as prideful self-assertion against God). Self-reliance may be equated with rebellion against divine authority, as it implies that an individual does not need God or the religious system for guidance or strength.
Individualism as Isolation: Individualism is often portrayed as selfishness or a failure to uphold communal responsibilities. This perspective is especially strong in religions that emphasize collective. By equating individualism with moral failure, religious systems encourage adherents to view personal independence as spiritually dangerous.
Encouragement of "Righteous Dependency": Dependence on God and the religious community is often framed as a virtuous act of humility and faith. Teachings may emphasize that humans are inherently weak or flawed (e.g., the concept of "original sin" in Christianity or similar doctrines in other traditions), requiring constant reliance on divine intervention and communal support to live a righteous life.

This serves to strengthen codependency by creating a need for the community. By demonizing self-reliance, religions foster a dependence on the community for moral guidance, emotional support, and a sense of identity. The community often becomes the only acceptable source of truth and validation, creating a "safe haven" while stigmatizing external or personal sources of strength. Religious leaders and institutions position themselves as intermediaries between the individual and the divine, claiming unique access to spiritual truths. This dynamic reinforces their authority, as individuals are discouraged from seeking answers or validation outside the prescribed system. Religious teachings highlight the dangers of leaving the community, whether through social ostracism, spiritual consequences (e.g., eternal damnation), or practical fears (e.g., loss of social and material support). By associating self-reliance with alienation or spiritual peril, these systems deepen individuals’ attachment to the group. Guilt is often employed to reinforce the idea that self-reliance is not only impractical but morally wrong. Adherents may be taught to feel ashamed for relying on their own strength or intellect, as these are framed as inadequate or corrupt.

Adherents are validated when they surrender their autonomy and conform to the community’s expectations. This positive reinforcement creates a cycle of dependency. Believers may feel a sense of belonging and worth only when they are dependent on the system, deepening their reliance on it. Over time, constant reinforcement of the idea that self-reliance is sinful or dangerous can erode an individual’s confidence in their ability to think critically or act independently. This lack of self-efficacy makes it increasingly difficult for individuals to break free from the system, even if they begin to question its teachings. The religion persists through codependency. By discouraging self-reliance and promoting dependence, religious systems ensure their own survival. The community becomes indispensable to adherents’ sense of identity, purpose, and moral grounding. This dynamic also encourages intergenerational transmission, as dependent adherents often pass on the same values and dependencies to their children. When challenged, religious systems often double down on these teachings, framing external critiques of the religion as threats that only deepen the need for reliance on the faith. The demonization of self-reliance and individualism can severely limit personal empowerment, as individuals are discouraged from trusting their own judgment or pursuing growth outside the system. The demonization of self-reliance and individualism in many religions serves to strengthen codependency by fostering emotional, spiritual, and social reliance on the religious community and its leaders. This dynamic not only reinforces adherence to the faith but also ensures the system’s survival and persistence over time, often at the expense of personal empowerment.

A codependent person can cling to a relationship, belief system, or community for self-serving reasons, often unconsciously, to maintain their sense of identity, worth, or purpose. Codependent individuals often derive their sense of self-worth from being needed or indispensable to others (e.g., a caregiver role). A codependent individual may justify their clinging behavior by framing it as "helping" or "supporting" others, when in reality, it prevents them from facing guilt, failure, or feelings of inadequacy. Clinging to a codependent relationship or community serves their need for validation. This is how codependency connects to the self serving bias. Codependent individuals may use their relationships or communities as a shield against feelings of inadequacy, thereby engaging in self-serving behaviors under the guise of altruism. Individuals might maintain a positive self-image while relying on external sources for support or justification, through the community and their perceived infallible relationship to the pure source of "goodness". The main implication is that codependent individuals often reinforce their behavior through self-serving narratives, such as believing their dependence is a sign of virtue or faithfulness. These narratives protect their self-esteem, reinforcing these egocentric tendencies.

Tolerance of Ambiguity (Or lack of) and Cognitive Closure

In this last section, I'd like to discuss this idea of ambiguity aversion. Like before, we must ask ourselves if this tendency precedes religious belief or if it is a consequence of religious belief. And like before, I see it to be both a cause and effect of persistent belief, operating in a positive feedback loop. Lets first define both of these terms and then I'll explain why these are so significant for the persistence of religious belief; both individually and intergenerationally.

Cognitive closure refers to the psychological tendency or desire for definite answers to questions and an aversion to ambiguity or uncertainty. This need arises because uncertainty can create discomfort, anxiety, or cognitive dissonance, prompting individuals to seek clear and definitive frameworks for understanding the world. Cognitive closure is not inherently positive or negative—it can lead to efficient decision-making, but it may also result in rigid thinking or resistance to new information. In the context of this blog post, cognitive closure refers to the tendency for an individual to adopt comprehensive answers (along with their implications) to fundamental existential questions such as: What is the purpose of life? What happens after death? How should one live a moral life? Why do good and bad things happen? Religions typically frame these answers in absolute terms, supported by sacred texts, traditions, and authoritative figures. This structure satisfies the desire for certainty and eliminates the discomfort of unresolved questions that can cause someone existential dread.

Tolerance of ambiguity is a psychological trait reflecting an individual's ability to cope with uncertainty, unpredictability, or conflicting information without undue discomfort or stress. People with a high tolerance of ambiguity are comfortable with complexity, open to diverse perspectives, and capable of holding competing ideas simultaneously. Conversely, individuals with a low tolerance of ambiguity tend to seek clear answers, prefer structured environments, and feel distressed by unresolved questions or uncertainty.

The two concepts are clearly interrelated and have an interesting connection to religious belief. Many religious subgroups, especially fundamentalists, advocate for black-and-white thinking, unambiguous clarity on complex topics, and cognitive rigidity. The is confirmed empirically by studies that have identified a strong negative association between the need for closure and dogmatism, measured by the Need for Closure Scale (NFCS). This can also be thought of as motivated close-mindedness. Individuals with low tolerance of ambiguity are more likely to seek cognitive closure. They may gravitate toward systems, like religion, that provide definitive answers to existential or moral questions, thereby reducing the discomfort caused by uncertainty. These tendencies very well may explain the formation of these communities. According to Kruglanski:

“A particularly exciting new line of research within the need for closure paradigm relates to its effects on group interaction and decision making. We have growing evidence to show that groups whose participants experience a high need for cognitive closure tend to develop a syndrome we have referred to as "group centrism". This includes the development of autocratic leadership, conservatism with regards to group norms, rejection of opinion deviates, conformity, and the tendency toward ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation.”

This quote highlights the system dynamics aspects of the need for closure. When forming collectives, multiple individuals with high need for closure interact to form groups that exhibit traits that ultimately exacerbate the problem and contribute to the persistence of religious belief. Essentially, larger structures are formed, which disincentivize deviation through additional mechanisms (such as those listed in the quote), while reaffirming or strengthening the initial need for closure. In other words, it is amplified, creating a positive feedback dynamic that resists many exogenous factors that could potentially dampen the cycle. The methods needed to identify issues with the belief, are fundamentally distrusted, neglected, or disincentivized.

The need for closure is also inherently connected with an individual’s sense of empowerment, which is rooted in codependence. Religions address deep and existential ambiguities—about life’s purpose, death, morality, and suffering—by offering definitive, often divinely ordained explanations. For individuals with a low tolerance of ambiguity, this structure provides relief and a sense of order, ultimately feeling empowered, providing a deep sense of control. Once the belief is solidified within a group structure, it can persist using the dynamics mentioned above. Ambiguity in moral or ethical decision-making can be stressful. Religious doctrines often provide unambiguous moral rules and guidelines, appealing to those who struggle with moral ambiguity. Having an unambiguous grasp on “how to act” can feel empowering and in many cases create a sense of superiority. This contributes to the “group centrism” mentioned above. In times of social, political, or personal upheaval, religion can serve as a stable anchor, reducing the anxiety caused by ambiguity and change. This could very well explain the apocalypticism of religious leaders, including those centered in the Abrahamic religions. Eschatology is a substantial subset of theology that is primarily geared towards answering questions that are anxiety inducing. Religions answer these questions, providing a sense of closure about existential concerns. Unfortunately, low tolerance of ambiguity can lead to a defensive posture toward competing ideologies or scientific explanations. Religious belief systems often encourage a similar defense by framing doubts or alternative views as challenges to faith (even if the challenges come from members within the community, something I will touch on later). For individuals with Low Tolerance of Ambiguity religious systems endure because they provide a cognitive and emotional refuge from the discomfort of uncertainty. These individuals are less likely to abandon religion because doing so would expose them to unresolved ambiguities. For communities, religious rituals, narratives, and communal structures reinforce the cognitive closure religion provides, making the belief system more resistant to individual questioning or societal change.

One can argue that this is a positive aspect of religious belief. Having a sense of empowerment can be healthy. A clear framework alleviates the stress and paralysis that often accompany uncertainty, enabling individuals to act decisively, reducing anxiety. People are more likely to feel in control when they have clear rules, explanations, or guidelines to navigate challenges. Frameworks that promote cognitive closure, such as religious communities, provide a network of resources and social reinforcement, empowering individuals through collective strength. Believing that one’s actions align with divine will or cosmic order provides a profound sense of legitimacy and confidence, empowering individuals to persevere even in adversity. This might explain why religious people tend to score higher on happiness scales; there truly is something profound about the statement “ignorance is bliss”. While all of this is true, I think it masks the fact that tradeoffs must occur when adopting a dogmatic belief system, such that mental health, among many other considerations, can be sacrificed for the sake of short-term satisfaction. Empowerment refers to the process of gaining control, confidence, and a sense of self-efficacy in one's life, but this should not come at the expense of the pursuit of truth or the well-being of others. In practice, however, this consistently occurs. Relying too heavily on fixed beliefs may hinder adaptability or openness to new ideas, which fundamentally hinders error correction (unless of course, you can reconcile beliefs with reality, but this implies someone is willing to put in the word to alleviate cognitive dissonance). Empowerment derived from rigid systems might make individuals resistant to alternative perspectives, potentially leading to conflict or isolation. The sense of control might be based on unexamined beliefs rather than genuine understanding, creating vulnerabilities if the belief system is challenged. Since this section is not about the downsides, I will be brief. While cognitive closure and the empowerment it provides through religious belief systems can be beneficial, there are several potential downsides that arise when reliance on cognitive closure becomes excessive or rigid. These downsides can affect individuals, communities, and societies:

1. Rigidity and Resistance to Change

Inflexibility: Overreliance on cognitive closure can lead to rigid thinking, where individuals resist adapting to new information or circumstances.
Conflict with Science or Progress: Rigid adherence to fixed religious beliefs may cause conflict with scientific discoveries, social advancements, or alternative perspectives.
Stagnation: Communities or societies that prioritize cognitive closure may resist reforms, leading to stagnation or failure to address emerging challenges.

2. Suppression of Questioning and Critical Thinking

Discouragement of Inquiry: In systems that demand unwavering faith, questioning core tenets may be discouraged or even punished.
Intellectual Limitations: The suppression of doubt can stifle curiosity, creativity, and the pursuit of deeper understanding. I think this manifests in “god of the gaps” arguments.
Dependence on Authority: Relying on religious leaders or texts for all answers may inhibit individual critical thinking and personal growth.

3. Polarization and Division

Us vs. Them Mentality: Cognitive closure can lead to black-and-white thinking, fostering divisive attitudes toward those with different beliefs or worldviews.
Intolerance: A strong need for closure may result in hostility toward ambiguity, pluralism, or diversity of thought.
- Social Fragmentation: Communities that rigidly adhere to their belief systems may isolate themselves or come into conflict with other groups.

4. Overreliance on Illusory Certainty

False Sense of Control: The stability provided by religious cognitive closure might create an illusion of control over unpredictable or uncontrollable events.
Vulnerability to Disillusionment: If a belief system is challenged or fails to provide answers during a crisis, individuals may experience deep disillusionment or existential despair.

5. Psychological Risks

Fear of Uncertainty: Excessive reliance on cognitive closure may amplify fear of ambiguity, making individuals more prone to anxiety when faced with unclear situations.
Suppression of Doubt: Internal doubts that conflict with rigid beliefs can lead to guilt, cognitive dissonance, or psychological distress.
Dependency on External Validation: Empowerment derived solely from religious frameworks may leave individuals feeling lost if they lose faith or their religious community.

6. Ethical and Moral Downsides

Unquestioned Moral Frameworks: Fixed moral codes provided by religious systems might lead to actions that are harmful or discriminatory, especially if those codes are outdated or interpreted rigidly.
Moral Absolutism: Cognitive closure can result in absolutist views, making it difficult to navigate morally complex situations or respect differing perspectives.
Justification of Harmful Behaviors: Cognitive closure may lead individuals to justify harmful actions (e.g., discrimination, violence, or exclusion) as divinely mandated.

7. Hindrance to Interpersonal Relationships

Difficulty Relating to Others: People who rely heavily on cognitive closure may struggle to connect with those who have more open-ended or exploratory worldviews.
Conflict in Diverse Settings: Rigid belief systems can lead to misunderstandings or tensions in multicultural or pluralistic environments.

8. Perpetuation of Inequalities

Reinforcement of Hierarchies: Religious systems that prioritize cognitive closure may perpetuate existing social, gender, or economic hierarchies by presenting them as divinely ordained.
Resistance to Reform: Calls for equality or justice may be dismissed as threats to the stability of the belief system.

9. Suppression of Spiritual Growth

Limited Exploration: Focusing solely on cognitive closure may limit deeper spiritual exploration or personal interpretation of religious experiences.
Fear of Questioning Beliefs: Cognitive closure might inhibit growth by discouraging the evolution of personal beliefs considering new insights or experiences.

Many of the items listed above contribute to the persistence of a belief system. In many ways, they encapsulate much of what I’ve been writing about for the past few blog posts. The need for cognitive closure and intolerance of ambiguity are mechanisms that enable the persistence of belief on an individual level. On a collective level, multiple individuals with these interact to form group dynamics that concretize the belief system even further with additional group-level mechanisms that operate with self-reinforcing dynamics.

What would one predict from everything described thus far? Is that religion ideologically monolithic? If you know anything about the history of Christianity, this might cast doubt on the analysis thus far presented. After all, there are something like 30 thousand distinct denominations (mostly all trinitarian, can’t seem to get rid of that nonsense). During the early stages of Christianity, there was perhaps even more ideological diversity with groups like the Gnostics and Ebionites. One might think that a tolerance of ambiguity would predict the pluralistic set of data like what we observe for Christianity, not intolerance. This would be a mistaken observation. The pluralism implied by tolerance would predict a pluralistic, yet cohesive society. Intolerance, however, leads to the fractioning, fragmentation, isolation, and hostility observed in the historical record, between competing denominations and theologies. Schisms in the church were not bloodless. The state sanctioned oppression of heterodox theologies (aka heretics) during early Christianity was not bloodless. This is only intrareligious disputes; I am not even going to cover the history of extra-religious disputes. The rigidity implied by cognitively closed systems that are highly intolerant of ambiguity lead to fracturing not observed in cognitively open, pluralistic systems. Intolerance does not mean there will never be ideological divergence. It means that systems in place will be much more resistant to change, implying more of a gradual and perhaps even punctuated, evolutionary history marked by significant resistance. These cognitively closed systems will be highly resistant to change from members within the group, and they will be highly reactionary to change originating from members external to the group. When change originates externally, the reaction can in many cases become violent, because the sense of self is challenged.

One might also ask whether intolerance to ambiguity is taught or innate. I’ve linked an article below that explains the connection between the need for closure and personality. This does not imply that a given individual is determined to be cognitively closed, just that they will more likely than not, exhibit behavior consistent with that pattern. I think perhaps it’s a combination of both nature and nurture. We might have certain predispositions at birth that can be amplified by our social groups during early childhood; especially in circumstances where these social groups exploit these innate tendencies. The primacy effect might explain cognitive closure among people born into religious communities. If your first exposure to intellectual inquiry is stifled by backlash from group leaders, you might be less inclined to pursue similar paths in the future. If you are taught at an early age that intellectual curiosity is problematic (perhaps indirectly, by being punished for exploring unsanctioned intellectual pathways), then you’re probably not going to pursue lines of inquiry or will become extremely anxious if you do (like in the absurd case of evolution). If you are taught that “Catholic’s are not Christians”, you are likely to have a skewed theological outlook and will be resistant to traditions and doctrines in other communities. Perhaps they might even seem “demonic” to you. In many cases, people have knee-jerk reactions to ideas, concepts, and practices that differ, instantly labeling them “evil” and writing them off entirely. These reactions are a manifestation of ambiguity intolerance caused by the need for cognitive closure. These could have been taught at a very early age and may persist due to the primacy effect. The primacy effect will work in conjunction with this need for closure; whatever was learned earliest will likely be the default response in situations characterized by complexity and ambiguity. Since the methods used for religious indoctrination are not universal, I do not expect to see identical levels of intolerance across the spectrum. Perhaps the early teachings were not as dogmatic for some people, or the effect of primacy petered out during childhood by exposure to alternative information. Nonetheless, this is an entirely plausible mechanism that can explain how intolerance to ambiguity could have been taught at an early age. As I have stated in earlier sections, group dynamics tend to solidify, amplify, and reward individual biases that contribute to the persistence of the belief system.

Here are some more resources about the topic:

Conclusion:

It should be clear that not all religious individuals behave like, or are caught up in, the dynamics I've described so far. A lot of this is tentative, merely a hypothesis based on what I've observed across various denominations of Christianity and discussions with ex-Muslims. For any given individual, this list could be partially applicable, entirely applicable, or completely inapplicable to their situation. Religiosity is a complex topic, I couldn't possibly reduce the range of religious experience to a single blog post. Nevertheless, these are tendencies I have observed, and there seems to be corroboration from researchers of religion, my interpretation of the history of religion, ex-religious people who share their experiences, and even current religious people. This list is supposed to reflect broad tendencies, or causal factors, that explain the persistence of religious belief. These appeal to me because the propositional claims of every religion seem to be obviously false.

Search This Blog

CriticalThinkingAcademy

The Nature of Agnosticism: Part 4.4

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 1

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 2

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 4.1