Reality Denialism and the Limits of Belief

Science

There are a few crackpots out there who think we never went to the moon. I have identified two factors at play here. I call them the Technical Limit of Belief (TLB) and the Social Limit of Belief (SLB). When you cross both lines, you have a reality denier.

Getting to the moon was a tremendous technical hurdle. Some people think we weren’t up to the task. It’s beyond their comprehension that we humans were actually clever enough to surmount the massive scientific and engineering challenges. That’s the Technical Limit of Belief that their minds can’t cross.

You also have to remember that the moon landings were right around (slightly before, actually) the time of Watergate.

For you young saplings out there, you probably can’t comprehend just how demoralized the country was at that point. That also coincided with our humiliating defeat in Iraq Vietnam (sorry, I sometimes type the wrong synonym). Inflation was raging. There was an Arab oil embargo, so you couldn’t buy gas. Being an American at that point just didn’t have the same uplifting feeling that it did at the end of WWII or the 1950s. People had had all of the optimism and hope beaten out of them. In that climate, being able to do something amazing like going to the freakin’ moon!! might have seemed out of place when measured against all of the other failures that were the Nixon era.

It was very easy to believe in a government conspiracy. After all, Watergate was a real conspiracy, and it was a big one. Nothing was as it seemed back then. You couldn’t trust the government, so believing the government when it said we went to the moon was beyond the Social Limit of Belief for some people.

When you cross somebody’s TLB and SLB, you create a denier of reality.

Global Warming

But what about deniers of other realities? I’m guessing that in every case, you’ll find both a TLB and an SLB at work. Interestingly, as I look at some of these cases, it’s the Social Limit of Belief that’s driving the denialism, and they’re merely using their Technical Limit of Belief as the excuse.

Take global warming for example. There are at least two types of deniers here, with a fair amount of overlap. In one camp are the economic and political conservatives. They like things to remain the same, because they’ve benefitted financially or politically. If society changes its behavior to fight global warming, their gravy train is threatened. They have a stake in global warming not being true. That stake is their SLB. Also, it is mostly liberals who are campaigning for aggressive measures against global warming. This also puts off conservatives, so that’s a second SLB for them. I was in the audience when staunch libertarian Penn Jillette said that he doubted global warming because Al Gore claimed it was real. Penn announced to the world what his SLB is.

Another camp is the religious and social conservatives. I’ve been having difficulty figuring out why these people insist that global warming isn’t real. The only explanation I have is that if the liberals say it’s true, then it must be false! I think by conceding global warming, they will have to go along with the liberal programs to combat it. They can’t let the liberals have that power. They might use it to push their other agendas as well. So for these people, giving in to the liberals is their SLB.

For both camps, then, the TLB is a mere afterthought. The social ramifications of global warming being real are too awful to contemplate, so the science must be wrong. It has to be. They can’t cross that SLB, so they paint a TLB line on the ground and refuse to cross it.

Evolution

The evolution deniers are all in one camp. They’re religious ultra-conservatives. They believe that the Bible is true. They don’t want to live in a world that doesn’t fit that blueprint. They pretend that this is a Christian country founded upon the Ten Commandments. They pretend that morality is externally defined by a deity and handed down from on high. Living in a world where those things aren’t true is way too scary for them. That is their Social Limit of Belief. In order to make the SLB hold up, they decide that the science must be wrong. It doesn’t matter how much evidence you show them or how much you try to educate them. They cannot allow that information into their brain. They cannot cross that TLB, because that would make their SLB, and their whole safe worldview, collapse.

Woo Hoo!

What about believers of “woo”, or all of the crazy anti-science things like astrology, homeopathy, dowsing, ESP, etc.? There’s probably a variety of explanations here.

For some, poor scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills mean that their Technical Limit of Belief is very close indeed.

Other people make decisions intuitively or emotionally, and don’t consider the logical side of things so much. There is nothing wrong with this! That’s just the way their brains are wired. But the result is that their TLB will be fairly close. It’s not so much a limit of belief so much as a place they just don’t visit often.

On the social side of things, consider medical scams (such as anything that uses the word “detoxification”!). Some people have had bad experiences with real medicine. As a result, they’ll say things such as “doctors don’t know anything” or “everything is controlled by the drug companies”. They don’t like the medical establishment and refuse to go there. That’s their SLB.

Or for another example, think of the paranormal. Ghosts, angels, “spirit guides”, etc. are appealing to many folks. They like the idea of a world that has those things in it. You can’t debunk a ghost photograph to those people. They want ghostly realms to be real, so crossing into the skeptical realm isn’t a place they’re willing to go. That is their SLB.

Conclusion

I suspect that if we explore this idea further, we’ll find that in every case of reality denialism, there are both Technical and Social Limits of Belief. One might weigh heavier than the other, and in some cases one is just there as a convenient rationalization for the other, but I think that you will always find both.

If you want to combat a particular reality denialism, you need to identify both the Technical Limit of Belief and the Social Limit of Belief that are at play. Find out which is dominant and focus your tactics against that one. If both are equally responsible for the belief, then you need to have tactics to fight both.

24 Responses to “Reality Denialism and the Limits of Belief”

  1. Jeremy White Says:

    This seems like an important article to me. I think this idea of recognizing what denial supports a persons delusions is really important. If you’re going to convince somebody that they are wrong, you need to figure out exactly why they believe something.

    Trumpeting evidence in science to discredit someone’s beliefs who doesn’t care about evidence isn’t going to help your case much. In that case, showing them how their mind works and how their own psychology (sometimes support by evolution) has tricked them would probably be better than saying “Look, dinosaur fossils. You lose.”

    I think the SLB is certainly harder to get past. How do you explain to a racist why he’s wrong? Logic usually won’t work. It looks like most of the vocal opponents of religion are fighting TLB.

  2. arkonbey Says:

    I’ll agree with Jeremy that SLB is a stronger force than the TLB. With many deniers, the SLB blocks any attempts of education/enlightenment.

    I might argue that there is no such thing as a TLB, and if there is it is extremely weak.

  3. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I agree with JW. This is an important article. I would further postulate that in many cases, it’s not so much “logic denialism” but a redefinition of logic. The human brain is pretty amazing. When it is fooling itself, it does so bigtime. It’s not that the believer does not believe in logic persay, it’s that their problem solving path (their version of “logic”) takes a different course than externally verifiable evidential logic does (the more formal logical approach to problems that is based on strict rules and proofs). So when you present “dinosaur fossils – i win” even in the most amazingly logical argument, it doesn’t jive with their internal logic. They can’t follow the same steps 1 through n. At step 3 they are already thinking “yea, but where’s God in this proof? I don’t see it, this can’t be true.” That completely aligns with Ron’s SLB/TLB. it’s at least their limit of belief that stunts their logic path. Now how do you make a persuasive argument against that? That’s the million dollar question.

    Oh btw, In that graphic at the top, I would have written the last line, “If you can’t accept that you are mistaken, FAIL!”

    Side note: it’s a damn shame the homeopathic / detox (et al) movement has aligned itself so much with the “herbal” crowd because there are, indeed, herbal remedies that DO work, but they are few and far between. For example, I take garlic for my cholesterol and it dropped me about 15 points (I made no other adjustments to lifestyle). Of course I have nothing against perscription medications, but there are a few real “herbal” remedies. It’s just a damn shame how it’s been so intertwined with the homeopathy crowd. It pisses me off.

    “Look at how this sticky thing on your foot has removed dirt and become black! DETOXING YOUR LIVErRRR! WOOOOOOOOOOOO”

  4. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Just to qualify my previous post so I don’t come off sounding like a nut-job, I only advocate an “herbal” thing that was recommended by my doctor and have real independent double blind studies backing them. I’m not trying to align with the “everything herbal is better than manufactured” crowd by any stretch of the imagination. Garlic and plant sterols (for example) meet this burden and are “generally recognized as safe” by the FDA, and, if they work, are significantly cheaper than the average perscription.

  5. J. A. Baker Says:

    Another camp is the religious and social conservatives. I’ve been having difficulty figuring out why these people insist that global warming isn’t real.

    I think I can come up with a second SLB for why religious and social conservatives reject the reality of global warming. They are so heavily invested in their belief that Jeebus will destroy the world and make a new one just for them that they don’t care about being “good stewards of God’s creation.” If they actually had to give two shits to the wind about the planet they currently live on, then that would somehow destroy their belief in divine comeuppance for the non-Christians, “libruls” and homosexuals. So they rail against global warming as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

  6. ginger1981 Says:

    Though I agree with the arguments for the most part, I don’t think that “ghosts photos are not real” should be put 100% in the realm of “nutty things to believe.” I do believe that most evidence of ghosts can be debunked…and what is left over is just stuff that we can’t explain yet. I am a skeptic but I think there is enough compelling evidence that there could be ghosts…it is a natural phenomena that we have yet to understand completely and is not something driven by God punishing/condemning dead people’s souls to walk the planet for eternity.

    That is just my 2 cents. By the way I LOVE this blog since I discovered it last week and I’ve been checking in daily since.

  7. Father Shaggy Says:

    One thing tha complicates the climate change denial situation is the fact that evangelicals might actually want it to happen. So they don’t deny it, it’s not crossing any boundaries for them, but the effects of climate change: drought, flooding, plagues, starvation, and inevitable war are good things. Some whacked out dude said so a couple thousand years ago. They all foretell the Return of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. So if you take steps to avert climate change effects, then you are thwarting God’s will.

    It’s the same reason they support Israel so rabidly. They WANT the end of the world. Evangelical pastors (and believers) all over North America talk about the Second Coming with bated breath and religious fervour in their eyes. That scares me more than people who deny it because a post-carbon economy will be inconvenient. My favourite (if such a word can apply…) is Jack Van Impe. He’s funny, and his hair is absurd. Plus his wife is improbably named Rexella.

  8. spinetingler Says:

    >My favourite (if such a word can apply…) is Jack Van Impe. He’s funny, and his hair is absurd. Plus his wife is improbably named Rexella.

    Oh yes. Easily my favorite. Each show consists almost entirely of a commercial for his next show, which consists of a commercial for his next show, which consists of…

    Also, Rexella’s “news” is hilarious (news isn’t just reading headlines, Rexi-baby).

  9. Sarah Says:

    I’d have to say that the social bit of it comes into play more than the technical. After all, if a person is presented all the evidence and been taken from Point A to point Z…how can they still deny it? The only reasoning would be because of the way their thoughts are wired.

    If you’ve been told constantly that humans are God’s children, it’s hard to accept that we are the same as animals. As for the Moon Landing, well up until that point, our government had fucked up a lot so people went into the mindset of “There is no way we are going to be able to get to the moon considering everything else that went wrong.”

  10. Sue Blue Says:

    The Manhattan Project far exceeded the space program in terms of sheer human effort involved. I remember reading that it remains second only to the Human Genome Project in the amount of scientific effort, number of scientists involved, time and money spent. The scientific and technological hurdles were enormous, especially considering that there were no computers as we know them. All the math was done with slide rules and primitive mechanical calculators. Yet, somehow, we managed to split atoms – a particle which no one had ever seen and whose existence was only proven by the arcane, incomprehensible (to the layman) theories of physicists. No one doubts that we did it – the sight of a new sun rising over the New Mexico desert was pretty convincing – and the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been pretty hard to fake. Whatever the morality or immorality of its use, there are no “bomb deniers” out there. Nobody seems to doubt that, way back before we even had jet engines or televisions, we could split atoms. Why is it so hard to believe that we actually went to the moon?

    I remember watching the moon landing on TV (I was in grade school), at my grandmother’s house. My great-grandmother, born in 1886, was there, and she didn’t believe it. She thought it was a movie, or some sort of “War of the Worlds” -type hoax. She had lived through the invention of the automobile, the A-bomb, the airplane, the radio, the television, and jet travel, but she couldn’t wrap her mind around the moon landing. I don’t think she ever did.

  11. mandrellian Says:

    Nicely thought-out article.

    I like the SLB and TLB concepts – TLB seems to be a cousin to the Argument from Incredulity that’s so frequently used against evolution (we’re too complex to have evolved, so goddidit). Thinking in TLB terms it’s no surprise that reality-deniers, wooers and theists overlap like ven a diagram so much of the time.

    I’m unsure how I’d go about combatting TLB (or SLB for that matter) – once someone of a particular mindset decides they’re right (or anyone from a particular group is wrong) that dogma can be hard as hell to budge. Sometimes it can be difficult to ascertain why someone is denying

    Cheers
    .m.

  12. mandrellian Says:

    Crud – browser just went ahead and hit POST for me 🙂
    Sorry in advance for the double.

    To continue: sometimes it can be difficult to ascertain precisely why someone is a denier, ie which force is stronger – their gut-reaction to a statement by anyone from a group they disagree with, regardless of its veracity or likelihood (Penn’s loathing of Al Gore) or their lack of ability to conceptualise something very complex. In my experience it’s often a tightly interlocked combination and in retrospect it would have been difficult to decide which tack to take: try to reason against the TLB-induced ignorance on display by appealing to their intelligence and logic and trying to explain things, or attempt to combat their SLB by de-politicising or de-religionising the issue and making it neutral. Difficult when arguing with some Americans, as religion and politics and ignorance seem to be more closely intertwined than ever.

    Regarding SLB: I wonder how many people are pro-war simply because so many liberals are against it? I’ve seen it happen so many times: liberals will say “there were no WMD/al-Qaeda or 9/11 links/this war is illegal as it contravenes Geneva and the US Constitution”, conservatives will dismiss anything along those lines because a liberal’s saying it. If a conservative says the same things, other conservatives will say “he’s pandering to the liberals”.

    Looking back, rarely have I had an argument over anything with someone who was purely TLB though. Pure TLB seems like it would be relatively easy to overcome. I’ve found you can explain almost anything to almost anyone if you have enough time and patience. But SLB is something that is often injected very young as part of their culture and becomes a part of someone’s very character and personality. It’s hard to pin down and harder to subject to the same kind of scrutiny and criticism as TLB. Religion-based denials will always be the most difficult to combat as they seem like mostly SLB with a little tech-bafflement thrown in to bolster it. “I can’t imagine it happening naturally, god did it”.

    .m.

  13. Jeremy White Says:

    I agree with Mandrellian that you can almost always overcome pure TLB with enough time. I also think that with enough TLB counter-arguments, you can sometimes exhaust a person’s ability to use their SLB (and I think Ron basically said as much in the article). Their SLB is supported by their TLB.

    What I mean is, if someone gives me enough evidence that the Bible contradicts science, I will eventually have an emotional reaction. This is what happened to me. I believed in God, not because I didn’t see how it was possible for evolution to have happened or because I wasn’t interested in science. I believed because I was told there was a God and I WANTED there to be a God. I “felt” the love of Jesus. I thought atheist were illogical idiots. I made excuses for religion. “Well, the bible could be interpreted to support science. After all, the people of the time weren’t sophisticated enough to understand science or comprehend such a vast universe so it was explained metaphorically”

    Eventually, I found enough facts in science that were contradictions to the bible and the excuses I made to still believe the Bible got so abstract that I was sort of exhausted from forcing these religious beliefs on myself. I realized my behavior was a result my social upbringing because I could no longer use the TLB to shield me from the SLB.

    It was then that I sought out reasons why I “felt” the love of God and learned about how psychology plays such a huge role. Brainwashing.

  14. Parrotlover77 Says:

    This whole concept seems to end with how easily one can accept a new and radically different view on a topic and how much evidence is required to accept the new view.

    It seems to me that childhood indoctrination builds a huge SLB wall that cannot be broken until one’s TLB is pushed back by education sufficiently to realize what the SLB actually is: dogma.

    Despite those like JW and myself who overcame indoctrination, I think the social reinforcement of others who are equally brainwashed and do not want to let go of mythology can plug the holes in the SLB damn, even with a sufficient level of technical knowledge such that the TLB is not as much of an issue.

    In fact I saw this happen recently with a friend of mine. He’s atheist and his girlfriend was, I guess, a weak agnostic. As in, leaning more towards there being “something out there” resembling the Christian God, but not a church goer or dogmatic. Anyway, she had to move for work to a fundie town and her new friends got her to start going to bible study after about six months. Next thing you know, her weakening SLB was reinforced and now she’s a church goer and, well, they broke up! She believes in evolution and so forth, so I don’t think the TLB was the problem. (Remember, there is no “technical limit” issue with belief in a non- (or weakly) intervening deity. It may be a logical fallacy to “prove a negative” but, well, to somebody looking for a mythological crutch, that doesn’t matter, they’ll believe it unless the negative is proven.)

  15. Parrotlover77 Says:

    “SLB damn” should read “SLB dam” but I suppose “damning” the SLB makes sense too. 😉 😉

  16. Flonkbob Says:

    Jeremy (waaay up there at #1) made a very good point. He said

    “Trumpeting evidence in science to discredit someone’s beliefs who doesn’t care about evidence isn’t going to help your case much.”

    That’s exactly the response we give to Fundigelicals who try to convince us that they’re right by quoting the Bible. We immediately reject the Bible because it’s proven to be worthless. They reject Science because it tends to refute the Bible. (SLB). They are also not well versed in the scientific method (TLB) because they don’t WANT to know what science can tell them. So how do you get through to someone like that?

    I haven’t figured it out yet.

  17. mandrellian Says:

    You’re quite correct Flonkbob, trumpeting science to the dedicated faithful is much like the faithful trumpeting scripture to an atheist – if someone, straight off the bat, doesn’t accept the source of your knowledge you’re already starting from the back of the grid. It’s quite a challenge and I’ve never been able to “convert” a fundy just using verifiable reality – or even get one to think about why they believe what they believe objectively. SLB is a tough nut, especially when, in the case of a fundy, their TLB and SLB are more or less one and the same! When scripture is someone’s entire knowledge base including morality, science, history and reality in general, it’s tough to find a gap to stick a wedge in 🙂 Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort – these are all classic examples of head-in-the-sand bible scientists. You’ll never, ever get through to those guys with actual science. It’ll just have to happen in their terms and in their own time, if it’s going to happen at all.

  18. Bunkie Says:

    What about believers of “woo”, or all of the crazy anti-science things like astrology, homeopathy, dowsing, ESP, etc.? There’s probably a variety of explanations here.

    Do you remember when you were a kid and fell down, hurting your knee or elbow? Your mom promised: “Let me kiss it and make it all better”. You hurt and wanted so much for it to be all better and when your mom kissed you, you were! I think that many people are still like that. They have hurts – physical, emotional, psychological – that they want to be all better, magically, just like mom used to do. They want it so desperately.

    A lot of these “woos” promise to make things all better, pretty much magically, from my viewpoint. Follow the advice in astrology and your life will be all better. Use these homeopathic remedies and your health will be all better. Use your mind to create or manifest what you want and you will get it, you just need to make a strong enough manifestation and it will be all better, magically. Wouldn’t that be great – to be able manifest that parking spot at the entrance to a shop or that new job or relationship or home you always wanted? And, wow, it works!

    Of course, you don’t notice all the times it didn’t work because, well, you wanted so much for things to be all better, that you are blind to the rest. And if you do notice, well it must be because you did something “wrong”. You didn’t quite follow the advice correctly or you used too little of the remedy or mixed it incorrectly or your manifestation was not clear enough. Maybe, the next time it will be all better….. And they never seem to figure out that had they done nothing, the results would have been no different.

  19. LadyRavana Says:

    Excellent article Ron. It really provides a lot of food for thought.

    I think you summed up perfectly why the global warming denialism is so rampant in the white house, besides the fundies, I think, on some level, they KNOW it (the super rich oil magnates) exists, they just don’t want those bad, ebil liberals to hijack that gravytrain on biscuit wheels. It makes me kind of sick that they’re only thinking about themselves, and not about the future. Surely they have kids, families? Don’t they think about the kind of planet they’re going to leave to their children, grandchildren? The lack of foresight in these people just shocks me. I wish they’d get it through their really, REALLY thick skulls, that it isn’t a liberal OR a conservative issue. It impacts ALL of us.

    *shakes head*

    And on the religious indoctrination thing. I’m gonna tell a quick little story here. I have some relatively fundie relatives. (who, ironically, are left-wing supporters. Oxymoron, eh?) My aunt and grandmother told me about “the coming rapture” when I was eight. I guess since I had “heathen” parents (well…my dad’s a Christian, my mom’s the hippie, mother-earth type) they felt they needed to save my immortal soul. Well…telling an eight-year-old that the world’s gonna end in fire and brimstone…well, it does things to a kid. It had accomplished its intended effect. I was a good little Christian for a while, reading my Bible, praying to Jesus, etc. I was bound and determined to stay on the straight and narrow. Evolution was a lie, God was the great truth, I was going to heaven, and all the bad people were going to burn, the athiests, the Buddhists, the Wiccans, the homosexuals, all the other non-believers.

    Well…when I was about 16, I got interested in Wicca, and pretty much abandoned Christianity. However, as the years went by, I bounced around with different spiritualities (I finally found one that suited me, over a year ago) but…whenever things went wrong, I’d try to turn back to Christianity, come back to “God.” But…I was never able to “feel” or “experience” God’s love. I asked for JC to come into my heart, I begged for forgiveness, in hopes that the invisible deity would grant me absolution. There was always that fear in the back of my mind. I questioned myself. Was I a bad person? Had God turned his back on me? Why wasn’t he hearing me? Why wasn’t I experiencing the peace and joy that God promised when you let Him into your life?

    Not surprisingly, it didn’t happen. In short, I experienced a whole lot of nothin.’ No burning bush, no arcangel, no booming voice, no grand revelation, no choirs of angels.

    Zero, zilch, nada.

    What I’m getting at here is that indoctrination is pretty powerful, and it took me years, YEARS to fully deprogram myself, but I managed to do it. It wasn’t easy to fully shake loose the deep-seated fear of the divine wrath of the Lord Almighty, should I step out of line. I finally broke free of the chains of religion, and find I’m more clear thinking than ever. It really is dogma, and I see religion for what it really is: a tool of fear and control to keep all the sheep in line. I’m glad I’m not part of that, and I never will be. I’m too much of an independent thinker, and I’ve seen far too much to ever go back.

  20. Andrew Says:

    I really like your thesis, but I’m not sure how useful it actually is in arguing with deniers. That SLB is a mighty strong force. Very rarely have I ever been able to convince someone that if they put aside their protective barrier and really look at the material evidence then they might just *have* to modify their opinion.

    In fact, I would posit that the TLB is rarely used honestly. It is just a hail mary pass to distract from the obvious “I don’t want this to be true”. And that is truly a conversation ending position. At least in personal discussions. In matters of public policy, their feet must be held to the fire and the medieval dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

    Perhaps, I am missing your point at the end of this, but to me the TLB is just a post-hoc justification when their SLB is assaulted.

  21. Parrotlover77 Says:

    LR – I had similar experiences of bouncing back and forth until I finally came to terms with it. When my first wife passed, I even tried on the religion pants once again briefly (few weeks). They still didn’t fit. Indoctrination is just evil.

    I still, to this day, feel really weird bringing up religious topics with my family (primarily for my parents’ sake). They know I’m not a church goer, but I stop short of telling them I don’t believe in the dogma anymore for fear of breaking their hearts in their old age. I know many non-believers disagree with this decision, but I don’t want my parents to spend their remaining years wondering where they went wrong with me. I’d rather they die thinking their kids are doing just fine and without worrying about my soul.

    Mythology shouldn’t have that kind of stranglehold on our emotions as a species. Not in this day and age!

  22. LadyRavana Says:

    PL- I actually remember reading about your first wife in another thread. I’m sorry that happened to you. I can’t imagine how difficult it must have been, to lose a spouse at such a young age.

    My grandparents are fairly conservative Southern Baptists, and while they don’t know about the current spiritual beliefs I have…it will stay that way. I know that for some, being a Christian is part of who they are, and it brings them peace. But I’ve come to realize that it’s not, and never will be for me. And it’s not always easy to keep “in the closet” about Jesus when you live in a state that has a pretty strong Christian base. I always like to say that around here, you can’t chuck a Bible without hitting a church. I can’t wait to move elsewhere.

    “Mythology shouldn’t have that kind of stranglehold on our emotions as a species. Not in this day and age!”

    Agreed. In recent years, I’ve become rather embittered and cynical about religion, and generally mistrustful of the whole setup. Coming to this blog points out and helps me see even more of the ridiculous fallacies in the Good Book that I might have missed the first time. It’s quite enlightening, and I learn something new nearly every day. I will say that living in the Bible Belt beat the religion right out of me.

  23. Moshe Says:

    A lot of these “woos” promise to make things all better, pretty much magically, from my viewpoint. Follow the advice in astrology and your life will be all better. Use these homeopathic remedies and your health will be all better. Use your mind to create or manifest what you want and you will get it, you just need to make a strong enough manifestation and it will be all better, magically. Wouldn’t that be great – to be able manifest that parking spot at the entrance to a shop or that new job or relationship or home you always wanted? And, wow, it works!

  24. Joseph Says:

    Another camp is the religious and social conservatives. I’ve been having difficulty figuring out why these people insist that global warming isn’t real.

    Last year I saw a news report about an island I think in the Caribbean where the sea level had risen about a foot and flooded the entire island. When the reporter asked one of the people there why they hadn’t left yet, one said basically that God’s covenant with Noah after the last world flood meant there was no way they were in danger. As the water swirled around her knees. Talk about SLB.