So we shouldn’t spread the idea that calling out conspiracies is necessarily, or even usually, crazy or a bad thing.

I don’t. Nor does Wikipedia, which distinguishes conspiracies (facts) from conspiracy theories (myths), so anyone confused is being irresponsible by not reading the article they are supposed to read. That’s their failure not ours. You are obligated to actually read something before claiming to understand it or learn something from it.

My article is also absolutely clear. Only “an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister group when other explanations are more probable” are “necessarily, or even usually, crazy or a bad thing.” And gave many examples to make this clear.

So, you seem to be wasting words here. I already covered this. In the article you claim to be responding to.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my message Richard.

Ok, I have read the whole Wikipedia article now.

Ultimately the message of the article is almost the same as the summary that I had already read.

Any reports of conspiracies that appear to contradict the “mainstream” or ‘recognised’ “qualified experts and historians” can be given the label “conspiracy theory”, which automatically warns most people off of looking any further.

The article leaves the impression that the term “conspiracy theory” is always, or predominantly, pejorative. Therefore, by definition, to throw the label “conspiracy theory” at something is synonymous with saying that it is invalid, if not full on crazy. 

This is also how you use the term.

But that is the problem. It’s a pejorative that most of the population have been trained to accept, so that they automatically filter out any ideas that this label has been applied to, whether by the mainstream media, or even by people in their friendship circles.

This is so widespread now, that most people refrain from investigating any ideas that have been given this label by any voice representing authority or even unqualified people in the media.

But conspiracy theories are like any other theories. Some have strong evidence, some have less evidence, and some have none. There are therefore, true conspiracy theories, just as there are false conspiracy theories.

The unfortunate reality is, if you’re going to categorise any particular theory, some work is necessary.

However much it’s ridiculed, it’s necessary to perform some research. Verify that the version of the theory you have heard is accurate, by going to the source. Then apply one’s own knowledge, and if necessary investigate further.

[I say this, but I admit I’ve never lifted a finger on the keyboard to investigate any theories that involve “lizard people”, or any other extra-terrestrials for that matter lol. Perhaps I should.]

But the bulk of things which attract the label of ‘conspiracy theory’ are barely theories. They are very often simple accusations, not all encompassing theories about the whole world.

The article admits that conspiracies exist, but effectively makes it impossible to discuss them or investigate them like we would any other accusations or scientific theories.

Ironically, your own theories, about the deceits committed by the authors and editors of the bible, and also the deceits committed by the churches ever since, to deny, ignore, hide or suppress any contradictions, or things they don’t like in the bible, could be represented as “conspiracy theories”.

A lot of the conclusions that you have painstakingly expertly researched and arrived at, could be dismissed by any old pundit as “conspiracy theories”.

Once labelled like that, most people would then assume that your theories have little or no evidence, and are probably ‘cranky’. The more advanced would possibly surmise that you are suggesting an unrealistic amount of coordination between the various authors and church authorities spanning an implausible period of many centuries.

I don’t think that any of these assumptions or suspicions accurately reflect your ideas or research. But that is by-the-by, because 95% of the population would thereby, with the turn of a phrase, be inoculated against researching them, let alone buying one of your books.

There is another ‘Wiki’ that has a bearing on this, and helps explain why I think this is important. WikiLeaks has educated many people about important conspiracies that have existed, and in all Bayesian probability, probably continue to exist to this day, seriously impacting and killing people in every continent. 

So we shouldn’t spread the idea that calling out conspiracies is necessarily, or even usually, crazy or a bad thing.

I show that Christianity fits the definition on Wikipedia.

That doesn’t mean other definitions don’t exist. Words are multi-valent. They can mean different things in different uses and contexts.

I am therefore not talking about real conspiracies (like the current ongoing conspiracy to hide the Epstein files to protect Donald Trump and, by his own admission, “his friends”). Those are far more mundane, and far better evidenced, than the kind on conspiracy theory Christianity fits the bill of.

If you actually follow the link I gave, Wikipedia explains the difference you are overlooking.

The lesson? Always read the source before claiming to know what it says.

I suppose this means that you have never yet come across a description of a conspiracy that you consider to be probable.

Therefore, that beliefs in conspiracies are always, by Bayesian logic, wrong.

Perhaps I can begin to shift your estimate that the truth of anything that looks like a conspiracy theory is vanishingly small.

Would you consider Guy Fawkes “gunpowder plot” a conspiracy ?

I’ll update the reference to include that one.

You are going beyond the point here. No one disagrees certain mindsets are primed to frame anything they don’t understand as magic. What we are saying is that if aliens tried to trick ancient humans into thinking magic occurred, they’d succeed. That’s what Clarke’s Law entails in this context. I am not asserting anything else but that.

Perhaps I haven’t understood the point after all: I didn’t read #4 as attributing the resurrection of Jesus to fraud at all, any more than the air forces were trying to trick the local people. I don’t think any inexplicable technology justifies/imposes a belief in magic, no more than any inexplicable phenomenon ever does. That’s what I think Clarke’s Third Law says. I think experience shows that those people who already believe in “magic” or already don’t want to believe in a dully materialist world may be convinced. These people already can’t distinguish science/technology from magic because they already think magically some of the time.

True in hypothetical space is too smart for me.

Joseph Smith was a liar but, as Ripley advised The Boy Who Followed Ripley, never confess, and Smith didn’t. Smith died like he was telling the truth. Still, the Ronson book can be found used, so maybe…

By the way, the list above forgot time travelers with a defibrillator.

I always wonder in these discussions how specifically the kludged together beliefs are being held by the individual. On a broad, population-wise level, the answer is pretty clear: Religions serve both broad human and specifically elite interests (so they’re both, from a sociological perspective, functional and conflict-oriented), they have utility, and so to keep them plausible against countervailing evidence there need to be ad hoc explanations made. Yet they also need to have some degree of certitude. As much as a more reasonable and prosocial Christian may not be particularly motivated to think the Judgment is right around the corner, the doomsayer and the street preacher need that terror appeal. It’s thus useful across the religion both for there to be a vague timeline (to avoid falsification) and for there to be concrete and near-term timeline (to induce action).

But on an individual level, people are thinking differently. Some people are just regurgitating scripture or some explanatory framework they heard from someone else. Some people are trying to figure out an answer, and of those, some are confident their hack makes sense and some aren’t. Some almost certainly know that the explanation sucks and this is a kludge, but are either grifters or think the ideology is too useful. There’s definitely the psychology of authoritarian apologia, where Dear Leader must be right, so everything else can be redefined to make sure they are. And some people are actually willing to just say “God’s plan is complicated, I don’t have to get everything and I can’t”.

(Meanwhile note that real world demonstrations of this exist in every attempt made to use hidden technology to trick people into thinking real magic, faith healing, talking to the dead, and so on, are occurring. The number of people tricked is astounding. There is a reason Penn & Teller frame their show in terms of repeatedly warning people that what they are doing isn’t real magic. And yet people who don’t even know the tech exists or how it works are the most easily fooled.)