It’s a provocative question for sure. What do I mean by true believer? Am I merely referring to religious groups? Or non-religious groups?
The concept of the True believer comes from the book Eric Hoffer who describes a whole host of different types of people who could be the true believer. It can include any of those groups actually. Religious or non-religious. I am a Christian, and a believer in the Christian God of the Bible and through him all things were made. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, that came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end. These are some of the words taken from the Nicene Creed that are a foundation to the beliefs that Christians around the world have. Now does that make me the true believer? Well I have doubts, at times, mainly when there is struggles, so one of those times when my dad died back in 2015, when I had only become a Christian few months prior, there were some questions and doubts that came to mind, but God both through his holy spirit gave me peace, as well as encouragement through fellow believers that reminded me of the hope we have for the future. That he will come again in glory and his kingdom will have no end. However, in this case, the true believer isn’t meaning someone with faith that has doubts, but rather it is referring to blind faith in a particular cause or movement. I wouldn’t call my own faith blind and you could either agree with that, if you are already a Christian, but if you’re outside that faith you may see it as a blind faith. Blind faith is not necessarily disregarding all logic, its rather akin to irrationalism—using logic when it suits you, and then disregard it when it pleases you. I’m going to make three claims that may or may not be true; 1) The Christian God, is the creator of the universe and that Jesus is the Son of God, and he was crucified and rose again on the third day , and then ascended into heaven. 2) Fascism and Nazism is not just on the same coin as socialism but is actually the logical conclusion of Socialism. 3) There was alien life on Mars and they had come down to Earth and interacted with us throughout time and gave us knowledge
Each of the three claims, have different degrees of plausibility. I would have to present some kind of evidence to support them. Some are easier to prove than others. I can list evidence for the first claim—the old and new testament, then outside that, books on ancient and medieval writers like Eusebius who wrote a chronologically history of the church from the early church history covering the gospels to his modern day (approx. 260 AD-340 AD) as well as Roman writers like Josephus, and Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Seutonius. I could point out and illustrate the fact that the original texts of the bible all the way through have not significantly changed—debunking the myth that the bible has changed. It hits the person with an absolute, a do or do not. Nothing in between. It leaves the person uncomfortable as it means they have to react to it. They may disregard those claims as and have to something else to counter it, like Plato or some other philosopher like Nietzsche, or most likely the Theory of Evolution or perhaps the big bang. Those that doubt, may even go home and think about it, those that doubt or those that are seeking. The ones that are most fanatical, the ones that are already committed to their own belief no matter how contradictory, will be unfazed because they will draw upon all sorts, some that I have mentioned or another particular discredited idea such as Jesus being a myth—even though the objective evidence suggests otherwise! Of course some that are in this mindset do and have ended up becoming Christians but by and large it doesn’t’ happen to all. To the second claim I can point out the book that this post is dedicated too, I could then point to other books like the Road to Serfdom by F.A Hayek, the Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Defying Hitler; A memoir, The Doctrine of Fascism by Mussolini, The Open Society and It’s Enemies by Karl Popper and the Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich . I could illustrate how the ideology of fascism and socialism where they originate from which is Plato’s Republic but this may have an air of intangibility—as it requires critical thinking but at the same time it has this air of time—there’s more than a thousand years between Plato and Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Either way it means you have to now weigh up evidence again and make an active decision. We have more a wider access to material so books from authors like Peter Kropotkin we can use as a defence to refute it as well as other books undoubtedly have refuted such a claim backed by people who lived in those periods.
However, both claims, people that already believe those positions the arguments would only reinforce the believer’s position. The ones that doubt would be challenged, and then perhaps would look into the claims presented to find out themselves whether either were true. But when hit with absolutes and we don’t believe it, we deny it, or look for other explanations. The true believer, would be unfazed no amount of evidence would change their mind, much like the first claim because we already have built our own belief systems and it would require significantly changing our views. In this case much like the first we can apply logic and then disregard logic, but it is easy to do because everyone alive has never met Plato and there were fewer critiques of Plato from his time period, and there’s virtually no one alive that has lived under Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini and there’s certainly fewer that have lived under all three, which can give it an air of intangibility. However there are so many different logical sources you would be able to look up, many I have mentioned but you would be able to compare the ideals and concepts and practices held by each for instance how they ran the government—all totalitarian. You can draw different interpretations that are all in the realm of logical possibility, anything that pulls away from that can be disregarded easily. For instance if I said, Mussolini was a saint, or a monarch, it’s absurd because its not rooted in any kind of reality but if I said Mussolini was a fanatical leader that only wanted the best for his country, its partly true as he was a fanatical leader and did have a vision for the state but it requires disregarding logic at the same time, as it disregards the authoritarian nature of what it entailed, which leads us nicely to the next point. The third though is the most interesting, and this can be applied to just about anything else, this is something that is harder to prove. Which makes it vaguer and in turn it doesn’t really challenge their views because it draws upon vague concepts and ideas that people may already have about the world and can include just about everything. It becomes more intangible and it requires blind faith to believe it. It would require me making some evidence, I could provide pseudo evidence—that may or may not be true, I could use anything like Ghosts, UFO sightings and reports, astrology, tarot cards, ancient civilisations like Atlantis that may or may not have existed, temples, crop circles, abduction experiences, Area 51, demon possession, voodoo, bigfoot, that add to it and these are things people can contextualise in their own minds but all these could be also contradictory. I could explain how they were the ones involved in great wonders like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon or how humans gained knowledge from being simple cave dwellers thousands of years ago. I could use vague evidence that helps build the claim as being real even though it is totally false, it has to have some support in reality. But this is what makes this type of claim dangerous as it seems plausible. It can draw people into all sorts of cults and movements in particular if there is an end goal in mind, but what tops it off, is if it is spearheaded by a particular person. “Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil. When Hitler was asked whether he thought the Jew must be destroyed, he answered, “No…We should have then to invent them. It is essential to have a tangible enemy, not merely an abstract one.” (Hoffer, 1951)
In this instance this would make people who are soul searching or have doubts about the world, or have no purpose be inclined to join and would become the true believers. It becomes harder to challenge it because the belief system is so vague that there are so many different sources, a number of vague claims, that can’t be tested as absolute, it is harder for the true believers to pull away. I could somehow discredit every UFO report and crop circles, I could use satellite tracking, radar tracking, I could illustrate how men themselves would make crop circles , I could point out that no ancient historical text from Herodotus to Julius Ceasar and the Gospels make no mention of them, but again it would probably not faze the true believer because he’s already believing the falsehood that these beings have already infiltrated and are pulling the strings of men and that they are so stoked in secrecy that it’s been kept quiet (a logical problem with the claim as its involved in everything so how could it be kept quiet). It can’t be given concrete evidence that these beings exist either way nor hard evidence, so it requires blind faith that all these different things do actually connect. So it is completely different to the two other claims in the sense that they have reputable, consistent evidence, and both can be challenged or looked at from people across cultures that can examine the evidence of those claims and make their own minds up on whether they are objectively true or false. With this third claim, it relies more on subjectivity and experiences and vagueness to form a false movement.
Heaven’s Gate that was founded in San Diego in 1972 by Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles. The group was based on the premise that aliens would escort members of the group to the “Kingdom of Heaven” via extra-terrestrial spacecraft. They first made headlines in 1975, when they convinced 20 new followers to give up their earthly possessions, leave their families and disappear. They also believed that they were the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation but also that one of them was directly related to Jesus. It’s easy to see how such a movement could happen it undoubtedly uses both a mixture of evidence claims from the bible the basis of their faith but then a very different, warped, interpretation and built with some kind of pseudo evidence perhaps the UFO reports themselves, or crop circles to give the idea that this is possible. Yet it is clear that this belief system has no basis for many reasons, for one Jesus left no descendants, two there is no mention of aliens taking humans to heaven, but rather that Jesus comes back to us with the sound of trumpets but these claims will be overlooked by people who are not actually looking for truth. Yet this won’t stop people believing absurdities as it takes accepting some logic, disregarding other logic as well as jumping through hoops to keep the commitment to the falsehood and will not break as it fits their own personal subjective, experiences and world view and these are much harder to engage than the fanatical Mormon or Muslim.
The quote by Hoffer as well as real movements like the Heaven’s Gate leaves us wondering, and questioning ourselves about what we believe in, and why we believe them. Is it rooted in objectivity? Is it something that permeates throughout time and all cultures? Is it something that can be tested, analysed and critiqued? Is your belief system logical? Does it remain consistent? Is there physical evidence that can attest to it? Are their eyewitnesses that can support those claims?
If the answer to all those questions is no, then it might just be that you are the true believer, one of blind faith, one of irrationalism where we use logic when it supports us but then disregard it when it challenges us.
References: Hoffer, E., 1951. The True Believer. pp.90 Further Reading: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-lists/american-cult-5-spiritual-groups-that-went-too-far-202224/heavens-gate-1972-1997-202348/
https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-cult-movies-documentary-wild-wild-country/