{"id":135717,"date":"2021-04-24T19:40:43","date_gmt":"2021-04-24T19:40:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.radiofree.org\/?p=190520"},"modified":"2021-04-24T19:40:43","modified_gmt":"2021-04-24T19:40:43","slug":"the-will-to-believe-and-to-make-believe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/04\/24\/the-will-to-believe-and-to-make-believe\/","title":{"rendered":"The Will to Believe \u2026 and to Make-Believe"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you were born in the 1950\u2019s or even a bit later, you more or less grew up with her. She wasn\u2019t an outlier; Jeane Dixon<\/a> was a syndicated newspaper personality. She graced the covers of popular magazines and floated on the airwaves of radio and TV. Her presence wasn\u2019t confined to the masses; she was consulted by the elite, including at least one U.S. President (Richard Nixon) and possibly influenced a second (Ronald Reagan). She claimed a transcendent ability to see future events and her predictions were actively followed for decades.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not likely you grew up with Edgar Cayce<\/a>, but it is likely you\u2019ve read or heard about him. He died (1945) about ten years before the beginning of Jeane Dixon\u2019s ascent in popular awareness. Like Dixon, Cayce claimed a transcendental gift that allowed him to see what others couldn\u2019t and was widely acclaimed in his day (and still is).<\/p>\n

Long before Cayce, there was the renowned Nostradamus<\/a>, whose 16th century allegoric quatrains are still perused for meaningful application. Arguably, Nostradamus is considered the greatest seer of all time. His volumes of poetic allegory provide an endless resource for transcendental treasure hunters.<\/p>\n

Perhaps more widely scrutinized than Nostradamus is the Biblical book of Revelation. Authorship may be disputed, but is most popularly accredited to John the Apostle. Its allegorical verse has been interpreted and reinterpreted for centuries and continues to be parsed for present and futuristic insight, most notably for end of the world scenarios and the second coming of Christ.<\/p>\n

There were, and continue to be, others who profess special accessibility to \u201cspiritual\u201d contact and unfolding future events. Not all achieve national and international recognition, but mystical practitioners are always around. The world is never without those who claim the gift of \u201cseeing\u201d beyond what\u2019s visible. It goes hand in hand with the gift of \u201chearing\u201d beyond what\u2019s audible \u2013 as in assertions of privileged access to the voice of God or other spiritual entities. Both claims provide a pedestal from which to be seen and heard.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s woven into our social fabric. We seemingly can\u2019t get enough of those who profess special psychic abilities or claim that God has singled them out to receive exclusive messages. Through 5,000 years of recorded history, we\u2019ve eagerly consulted with and listened to their pleas, declarations, and mandates.<\/p>\n

If not in our DNA, it\u2019s certainly come to be institutionalized. Our religions teach and even demand that we accede to the proclamations of endorsed prophets who claim to be recipients of privileged communications. Beyond religious settings, our popular media outlets sensationalize claims of paranormal psychic ability. We were taught to believe, we teach our children to believe, and we require our political leaders to at least appear<\/em> compliant with culturally recognized seers and prophets. It\u2019s our normalcy. We live in a world that\u2019s eager to accept \u201cacceptable\u201d assertions of paranormal intimacy and privileged knowledge.<\/p>\n

\u201cAcceptable\u201d is the key word. Religious and cultural tradition usually dictates the boundaries of acceptable \u201cseeing.\u201d New arrivals are first viewed with suspicion and require vetting. If the seer\u2019s visions or proclamations run counter to established tradition or doctrine, they\u2019re apt to be shunned or declared heretical. It\u2019s somewhat like trying to enter an exclusive nightclub; recognition and proper attire is required.<\/p>\n

QAnon is fresh on the scene and doesn\u2019t quite cut it with the established elite. It has aspirations, but is tackily dressed and unconnected. It was met at the door with, \u201cSorry, no admission, take it to another place.\u201d And so, they did. The \u201cAvengers\u201d comic book version of Biblical prophesying took it down the street. The unconnected are dancing, just like the hoity-toity, but in a cheap pub having no bouncer or cover charge.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s to the same music. Sure, they dance with more abandon, but are they really that much different? Is QAnon willingness to believe the claims of a mysterious prophetic voice any different than Christian (or other) willingness to do the same? Is it more gullible or dangerous?<\/p>\n

Over the course of recent months, QAnon voices predicted former president Trump\u2019s return to power multiple times. When one such date passed without his reinstatement, another was quickly established. Over the course of centuries, Christian voices have continued to forecast the year of Christ\u2019s second coming (nearly fifty times, thus far). When each stated year passes without incident, another prominent voice comes along to recalculate his return. Who is more gullible?<\/p>\n

When QAnon followers (among others) stormed the Capital Building on January 6th, 2021, six people died and hundreds were injured. In 2003, President George Bush referenced<\/a> the book of Revelation to rally international support for the invasion of Iraq. Thus far,  well more than half a million deaths have occurred and as many as two million have been severely injured. Who is more dangerous?<\/p>\n

Believing is acceptance, no matter the tradition or cultural weight behind it. Accepting the primacy of mystical writings from a prophet who lived 2,000 years ago involves the same \u201csurrender\u201d that takes place when one accedes to a present-day mystical internet voice: the will and perception of another becomes one\u2019s own.<\/p>\n

More than a hundred years ago, William James lectured on \u201cThe Will to Believe.\u201d He suggested that upon meeting certain criteria, it\u2019s advisable to believe<\/em> in the face of uncertainty when the risk\/reward ratio of believing is better than the risk\/reward ratio of not believing. He exampled Christianity: If its tenets are true<\/em> and you believe in them, you go to heaven. If you don\u2019t believe, you go to hell. If Christianity is a false <\/em>narrative that you believe in, you don\u2019t go to heaven, but neither do you go to hell. So, one might as well believe. At best, it might get you into heaven. At worst, it won\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Again, believing is acceptance, but how well does QAnon\u2019s belief fit the James\u2019s rationale for rational<\/em> acceptance? Not very well, it would seem. Much of QAnon\u2019s conviction centers on Trump\u2019s triumphant return to power, presumably as President of The United States. If the QAnon tenet is true and you believe in it, you go to \u201cTrump world\u201d (What fresh heaven<\/em> is that?). If it\u2019s true, and you don\u2019t believe in it, you still<\/em> go to \u201cTrump world\u201d (and what fresh hell<\/em> is this?<\/a>). So, if skeptical of QAnon, one might as well remain skeptical. At best it won\u2019t get you into \u201cheaven.\u201d At worst, it might.<\/p>\n

That it can\u2019t stand up to the William James rationale for acceptance doesn\u2019t make QAnon less believable<\/em>; it only means that there\u2019s too little reward or punishment involved to meet James\u2019s criteria for rational<\/em> belief. Unaddressed is consideration of whether the \u201cwill to believe\u201d is actually a calculated<\/em> decision whose repercussions apply only<\/em> to one\u2019s self.<\/p>\n

If \u201cbelieving\u201d was a lone endeavor, the William James assessment might carry more weight. \u201cBelieving\u201d though, often means believing in someone<\/em>, and usually it means believing in someone as part of a collective. If it\u2019s religious, it means believing the declarations of one who claims special access to God. If it\u2019s not quite religious, if it\u2019s merely psychic or mystical, it still means believing the declarations of one who claims special access to information inaccessible to others: a spirit world or perhaps visions of future events. It requires acceding one\u2019s perception to another who claims a higher perception. When we do so as a collective, our combined influence or power is surrendered to an entity that then wields it for us. At best, the power will be used to facilitate humanitarian deeds. At worst, it won\u2019t be, and one has only to view a news site or open a history book to see how hellish that can be.<\/p>\n

Beyond thoughts of heaven or hell, the \u201cwill\u201d to believe allows for collective action that might be constructive, but it also leaves one vulnerable to deception and manipulation. It sets the stage for a perilous Yin Yang duality: a \u201cwill to believe\u201d binding with a \u201cwill to make-believe.\u201d For both Yin and Yang, \u201cwill\u201d is the \u201ccraving,\u201d while \u201cbelieve\u201d and \u201cmake-believe\u201d are the \u201csugars.\u201d The believer\u2019s \u201cwill\u201d is to be a part<\/em> of something bigger than one\u2019s self (it needn\u2019t always be so alluring as heaven). The make-believer\u2019s \u201cwill\u201d is to be the center<\/em> of something bigger than one\u2019s self. When conjoined, it\u2019s a symbiotic relationship; believer and make-believer sweeten and validate each other.<\/p>\n

Ancient prophets, new world spiritualists, and modern-day metaphysical internet voices share the same old dynamic: the desire to appear<\/em> empowered with extraordinary capabilities. If the dynamic wasn\u2019t real, their need would go unnoticed. But it is noticed; they dramatically reach for an audience while declaring primacy to God\u2019s word, to spiritual contact, to mystical visions, or to some sort of privileged knowledge. They have to have it. An audience grants the necessary validation; an audience is proof that one is special; an audience is empowerment.<\/p>\n

The \u201cwill to believe\u201d is also the same as it ever was: the desire to \u201cbelong to\u201d or to be a part of something bigger than one\u2019s self. It doesn\u2019t have to be conjoined with the \u201cwill to make-believe,\u201d but the desire leaves it vulnerable to such voices; voices that often claim special knowledge or access to God. The \u201cwill to believe\u201d a mysterious internet voice revealing the existence of a satanic global cabal of perverts in the basement of a pizza parlor isn\u2019t new. It\u2019s the same as the \u201cwill to believe\u201d in mysterious Biblical allegories portending the second coming of Christ or the dawning of The New Age. Jake Angeli<\/a> and President George W. Bush shared the same \u201cwill to believe.\u201d Jake listened to QAnon, donned a furry horned cap, and invaded the Capital Building. George listened to John the Apostle, donned a respectable suit and tie, and invaded Iraq.<\/p>\n

We all seem to have it, the \u201cwill to believe,\u201d the \u201cwill\u201d to be a part of something greater than our selves. It doesn\u2019t have to meet the William James rationale for acceptance (we have the creative ability to make any held belief seem reasonable). It doesn\u2019t have to be of eternal consequence (we\u2019re willing to believe for less than that). It doesn\u2019t have to be enculturated (though it\u2019s certainly less scrutinized and more \u201cacceptable\u201d if it is). It doesn\u2019t have to be a \u201cmake-believe\u201d voice (but it certainly can be).  It doesn\u2019t take too much; it just has to offer something beyond the confines of our limited selves. We\u2019re vulnerable. We\u2019re low-hanging fruit with a need to believe, primed to believe an intriguing voice. One always seems to come along; a voice with a need of its own; a voice that finds us ripe for the picking.<\/p>\n

Vern Loomis lives in the Detroit area and occasionally likes to comment on news and events that interest him in whatever capacity available. Read other articles by Vern<\/a>.<\/div>\n

This article was posted on Saturday, April 24th, 2021 at 12:40pm and is filed under George W. Bush<\/a>, Iraq<\/a>, Mythology<\/a>, Opinion<\/a>, QAnon<\/a>, Spiritualism<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

This post was originally published on Radio Free<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you were born in the 1950\u2019s or even a bit later, you more or less grew up with her. She wasn\u2019t an outlier;\u00a0Jeane Dixon\u00a0was a syndicated newspaper\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":328,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[135,192,4739,4,33,4200,20491],"tags":[151,995,20492,41,20493,20494],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135717"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/328"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135717"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135717\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":135718,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135717\/revisions\/135718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}