Ire of Believers

Or visit the forum and see if others share your observations.

Those with more than a simple passing interest in ufology, or the study of unidentified flying objects, are likely familiar with the outrageous and oftentimes brutal accusations leveled against skeptics willing to take vocal issue with claims and beliefs they find fraudulent or misguided. These attacks in the main originate from those in the field commonly referred to as believers though in a noticeably smaller set of instances some claiming to be skeptics are also responsible. I say claiming to be skeptics as this behaviour casts doubt upon their actual intentions and state of objectivity required for true skeptical scrutiny. What starts as candid or direct discussion of the points leading skeptics to take issue with these claims often ends with the skeptic finding himself on the recieving end of some wholly asinine accusations such as pedophilia, preverication, cruelty, insensitivity, atheism, and a whole slew of other irrational accusations too numerous to list.

Usually this can be observed to take place immediately after the skeptic presents the believer with evidence denying the validity of his claims or beliefs. The believer is suddenly confronted with the uncomfortable conundrum of either acknowledging the weakness of his position and allowing that his beliefs may be founded upon false premises or continuing with them despite their having been rendered ineffective or baseless. No one enjoys being proven wrong; in ufology, not only wrong, but often a charlatan or liar. To have this done publicly is intolerable to believers as it directly damages credibility which they often hold steadfastly to be impeccable in their respective cases. Worse, and more to the point, it touches upon their perceptions of their self image. It represents the destruction of a pleasing self image. One where the believer holds his own virtue above reproach and considers himself a model of good character and strong intelligence.

This perceived destruction however is wholly of his own doing although he is quite unaware it is he who is responsible.

"That hatred springs more from self contempt than from a legitimate grievance is seen in the intimate connection between hatred and a guilty conscience" Eric Hoffer.

It is the self image being falsified by confrontation with material perceived as detrimental that I feel is responsible in large part for the hate filled tirades many believers resort to in their arguments against skeptics. Such believer hatred begins as an attempt to disavow certain undesirable potentialities within the self . These potentialities exist within all of us and are quite normal yet this is not understood by many of us as the teachings of our society and culture instill in us the feelings that they are "bad" and abhorrent without preparing us to deal with them in a rational and effective manner. Potentialities such as lust, greed, and deceit, are denied their existence within ourselves in order to form a pleasing self image of ourselves albeit a false one.

 This formation of a self image begins in early childhood and continues throughout life without the individual aware this is being done. He is taught that these "bad" potentialities are to be denied, not accepted and reconciled, therefore he forms a self image completely denying their existence within himself and believes himself to be free of them completely. However, simply denying their existence does not negate their presence. This presents a conundrum as he is aware of their presence yet they cannot be present within himself. A conundrum which the individual resolves by rationalizing his understanding of these potentialities through projection of them onto others where they can be safely recognized with no threat to the erroneous self image built without acknowledging their presence within himself.

In the case of skeptics and believers the believer, aware of these potentialities yet denying their existence within himself, becomes severely agitated when openly confronted with the fact that they are not only present, but quite obvious and in part responsible for his beliefs. Caught in the lie, or having the truth regarding his misplaced faith or belief dispassionately driven home by the skeptic the believer subconsciously projects his own self loathing and denied potentialities upon the skeptic. Whereupon he can direct his self righteous indignation and contempt at such abhorrent traits. This has the desired effect of salvaging his false yet pleasing self image as innocent and righteous believer and allowing him to continue to deny these unpleasant potentialities. The skeptic is attacked and claimed by the believer to be "closed minded", a liar, a fool, and the whole gamut of unpalatable possibilities the believer may be trying desperately to deny exist within himself.

Unrealized by the believer is that by denying these potentialities within himself he is engaging in a form of self deception which has as it's only benefit the formulation of a self image which while pleasant, is at it's root false. While pleasing to the person employing such self deception the false self image places him in an uncomfortable position should anything confront him which places it at risk. His inherent potentialities and his pleasing self image are always one step away from conflict And this conflict happens often in ufology. Every point suggesting gullibility, every truth suggesting error, every fact revealing fraud is felt intimately and his first and overriding concern is to deny them in any manner possible. The most common and expedient manner being persecution and discrediting of those he feels are his attackers responsible for placing him in this position, commonly referred to as, "shooting the messenger".  Yet it is himself who places his self image in jeopardy as the very qualities he seeks to exemplify in himself by denying those he finds "bad" require that he acknowledge and reconcile these inconsistencies within himself. How can he understand the “ badness” without knowing it intimately? He is caught in a catch twenty two with no logical way out except to admit his very perception of himself is false.

In attempting to build a positive self image one attempts to conform to the standards set forth by society and his peers. His peers are his sounding board, how they react to his actions and positions determines his appraisal of himself. Believers, cloistered together in mutual interest or "support" groups and sharing what they feel to be a common bond born of "knowing a hidden truth" reinforce each others self deceptions and collectively gear themselves towards denying the potentialities these groups believe they are free of and abhor. Rather than act as a true support group and facilitate understanding of the underlying problems inherent in their false beliefs these groupings present a chance to bolster the beliefs and self deceptions by mutual consent to support the others position regardless of underlying doubts and refuting facts simply because the other will do the same for them. This is an unspoken understanding. “Don’t question mine and I won’t question yours. We’re all in this together.” They all suffer the same neurosis and gaining support is preferable to direct confrontation with unpleasant truth. Instead of realizing  the existence of these potentialities even within the group they deny them even more strongly thanks to positive reinforcement of the false beliefs by a group of peers. This is where stereotyping and persecution of skeptics begins in earnest.

The groups mentioned above do not necessarily need to be organized and cohesive to be effective. A mere belief in similar fantastical myths or enigmas is enough to form a loose bond between those, who while knowing nothing of those they share the belief with, will readily defend and agree with them simply due to their common bond which is a credulous belief.

The stereotyping within ufology of skeptics by believers is very well known and can be seen almost anytime discussion between the two positions is engaged in. Skeptics are everything "bad " believers feel they themselves are not. The skeptics are branded as evil through a convoluted morass of illogic intended by believers to prove to themselves that they recognize the undesirable potentialities within only because the skeptic has them and not themselves. This also has the benefit of destroying, at least for themselves, any credibility the skeptic has thereby making further attempts by the skeptic to advance rational or plausible alternatives to fantastical beliefs ineffective. The skeptic is an evil debunker concerned only with destroying interest in their beliefs therefore he should be ignored and reviled for his deplorable actions.

Put simply the skeptic is revealing to the believer regardless of what discomfort it may cause the fallacies of not only his beliefs but his own self image. And the believer in his attempting to deny his own unpleasant potentialities places them greatly exaggerated upon the skeptic. There, he can safely display his disgust and revulsion for such deplorable characteristics with no consequences for his own self image. Further, the group or his peers if you will, already biased in favor of his position through a shared credulous belief  do not question his misdirected actions and often share in them. The individual perceives this as approval and support of his false yet pleasing self image. And the cycle continues and compounds with few ever willing or able to objectively assess the true state of the matter. In order to do this it is necessary to first acknowledge that there is indeed a problem. Getting past this point is difficult for most as it forces realization that a deep seated assumed “truth” may not be the truth at all. A truth upon which much of the persons entire self image hinges upon. Once past this though it becomes much easier to begin the process of learning. Identifying and accepting these potentialities will allow the individual to reconcile them with the person they wish to be. They are present and are a genetic part of all of us. What we do with them though is what decides exactly the kind of person we are. All are susceptable to this sort of potentiality-self image conflict based behaviour, both believer and skeptic alike. 

The process of self deception speculated upon here is not the domain solely of believers in fantastical enigmas. However, skeptics, in larger part understand the need for objectivity and dispassionate consideration. This does much to negate the results of such inner conflict and allows the skeptic to at the least, argue from a position of greater strength and veracity. Both would do well to consider though what they are basing their assertions upon and why. Why do you get so angry? Why do you view your opponent with such contempt and hatred? Could it be you see something of yourself in your opponent? Something you find you do not like at all?

It is not wrong or bad to experience feelings or tendencies taught to us by society to be bad or evil. The detrimental effects they have on us personally and upon others supports the view of them as being bad and society has justly labeled them as such in most cases. It is wrong however to allow them to exist without control or mitigated integration into the whole of the self. This, in the end, allows them free reign to affect without control, who we are, what we do, and what we believe in. We then can, and do, become “bad people”.