Is there anything less credible than shows that take the stance of buying into conspiracy theories, and say that so and so controls the media? Because either
- the group does exists and controls the media, in which case one can say that they’re inaccurate enough that the group doesn’t care to take them off TV, or disrupt their Internet access so they can’t post online, as there is nothing being revealed about them
- the group doesn’t exist or can’t control the media, in which case they get significant aspects wrong
- one could propose a third set, that the group exists, they control the media, but it does so much more to discredit the claims by leaving them as is.
The difference in outcomes between the three simply can’t be distinguished, in which case, we can’t determine which one accurately explains the outcome of having a show taken off TV, preventing a particular episode from reappearing, or conspiracy theorists prevented from posting online. A similar set can be proposed in response to various criticisms regarding the involvement of a deity
- a deity does exist and does have absolute control, it simply doesn’t care about the concerns of humanity to intervene
- no deities exist or, if at least one exists, it doesn’t have control, meaning that significant aspects of religions are wrong
- a deity does exist, and does have absolute control, it simply lets bad things happen to test our faith
While variations of #1 and #2 aren’t used very often by theists or apologists, they do provide just as much of an explanation as to why a deity would not be involved. So then, how do conspiracy theorists and theists conclude their respective versions of #3? Posts entitled PoCTSAtR will be looking at the explanations provided for coming to that conclusion.