When faith meets fear

》TOC 》

• Spiritual mantra in pandemic times?
• Teasing out the “Faith over Fear” paradox
  • Safety measures: A tacit acknowledgment of fear?
  • The Amish lens
• Is it faith versus fear or faith with fear?
  • Political defiance or genuine faith?
  • Contextual fluidity: The pandemic as a lens
  • Complex heuristic or a convenient guise?

Time to read: 14 minutes

Spiritual mantra in pandemic times?

On a recent trip to a small Montana town — known for its Conservative Christian populace, now a patchwork of diverse religious sects, including various Amish communities — I encountered a slogan: “Faith over Fear.” A placard bearing these words stood prominently displayed in front of an Amish store as well as on billboards and yard signs, and they appeared during the pandemic and all its controversy. So I presumed the slogan was a reaction to the divisive debates over pandemic vaccinations and mask mandates. This slogan seemed to be asking its residents to opt for divine trust over worldly caution.

The moment I saw the “Faith over Fear” slogan, my first inkling was: this wasn’t just a theological aphorism in a small town; it had the look of a rallying cry, with seeds of a broader ideological resistance.

Was this, I wondered, a form of political defiance framed as a spiritual axiom?

The slogan appeared to be operating on multiple levels. On the surface, it projects an ideal of unwavering faith in the face of bio-adversity (viz., a highly communicable disease). But when we add the context of a global pandemic and governmental mandates, it morphs into a complex commentary, both implicit and explicit, on the tensions between individual liberties and collective responsibilities.

So let’s sort out this seemingly multi-dimensional slogan in that particular political context: Is it a coded way of saying, “Our faith grants us the liberty to defy government mandates,” or is it genuinely a call to rely on spiritual beliefs over worldly fears of natural threats?

One might argue that if it’s the former, it teeters on the edge of political defiance couched in religious terminology. If it’s the latter, it enters the realm of personal belief and individual choice, but with potential public health consequences.

Teasing out the “Faith over Fear” paradox

Theories and speculations need grounding in the real world. To that end, as I explored the area, I noticed incongruities that made the slogan’s full-throated proclamation of ‘faith over fear’ appear somewhat paradoxical. For instance, many locals openly carried firearms to ward off ‘bad guys with guns’ — a tool of earthly precaution. They visited doctors regularly, looked both ways before crossing the street, carried rifles for the occasional charging bear, and some even took swimming lessons and wore life jackets when boating. But it didn’t stop there: folks bundled up in heavy coats to face the winter chill, moved their cattle to safer pastures in anticipation of storms, covered their hay to protect it from the elements, and strategically watered their fields, acknowledging nature’s unpredictability.

All these actions point toward a sort of pragmatic engagement with the world, a calculated approach to minimize risk.

Epistemic closure is an act of will

Just reviewing what epistemic closure is…a good 2010 NYTimes article: “‘Epistemic Closure’? Those Are Fighting Words”

It’s a very good read.

Then I read a logical analysis of ‘epistemic closure’ — the logic topic — on http://plato.stanford.edu, there is an argument against the existence of epistemic closure: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 f𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘒𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦.  That argument seemed weird to me.

I think we MUST concede that there is a logical definition, and then there’s its non-logical application. It’s precisely 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 there is lack of analysis of knowledge that there is closure.

Or better still, you can “analyze” what you 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 is knowledge (when it’s not knowledge) and simply reinforce “truth” of what you believe (bias confirmation) or just add volume to the muck of what you believe is fact.

What we mean by closure is that new knowledge based on analysis of facts (existing “knowledge”?) or even the willingness to consider facts outside your echo chamber is non-existent or seriously (willfully) inhibited.

With epistemic closure, when there is cognitive dissonance, people “resolve” the dissonance in favor of what fits the narrative they want to believe or that fits within what they think they “know.”

The existence of “death panels” was a shining example. Without critical evaluation of facts (like actually reading the bill), you hear “death panels” from a demagogue; and no amount of presenting facts works to dissuade you from believing such a thing exists. It echoes well with both what you want to believe and what you think it fits “logically” into what you think you “know.”

Understanding epistemic closure

Re: Epistemic closure comes back to haunt the GOP

Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion, or what we call “knowledge.” Epistemic has to do with knowledge or the degree to which to which we validate it.

When you limit what constitutes truth, even the possibility of truth, or where truth can be found, you have closed off an important part of how you gain knowledge and introduce bias into your understanding of the world.

When you use ways of thinking that don’t follow implications (what is logically implied by honestly evaluating how one thing leads to another or what needs to be true for something to exist [entails]), you have effectively created an echo chamber, where you only hear ideas that align with your preconceptions, and ignore alternative perspectives.

In an echo chamber, you only allow yourself to consider a narrow set of ideas and actively avoid or reject ideas that do not align with your existing beliefs.  You rationalize away a possible truth (cognitive dissonance) because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe (bias) by either distorting the implications to fit your beliefs or denying it outright.

This system of thought ultimately prevents us from gaining a deeper understanding of the world and can lead to a narrow-minded and dogmatic perspective. This is epistemic closure: you have built a seal around what you allow yourself to know.

Our Weakness for Agnotology

We typically think of ignorance as the absence of knowledge or education. In fact, it can be the opposite: “knowledge” that is founded on untrue information. It is what you believe is knowledge, when in actuality it was false information designed to resist the scrutiny of provable or proven fact. The resistance comes as a function of how deeply it is believed to be true: the more strongly we believe it, the more we resist data that disproves it. Cognitive Dissonance.

Meet Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association: « If HIV caused AIDS, Magic Johnson would be dead. Doesn’t even look sick to me. How about you? »

Doubt anyone?

Agnotology is the manufacture of ignorance by cognitively structuring misinformation to represent reality to support a desired narrative. Agnotology is « culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.»

For example, as Wikipedia has recorded, the tobacco industry’s constant barrage of misinformation to create what would henceforth be mistaken for actual knowledge within the culture: the doubt about cancer risk in smoking.

If you are a medical scientist, you know HIV causes AIDS because you have investigated all the invisible micro & macro factors that Joe the Plumber cannot see by simply staring at the surface of a person’s body.  You know how smoking harms the lungs and cancers develops.