Christianity Is the Oldest Conspiracy Theory in Human History

Something happened 100,000 years ago that changed everything.

A bolt of lightning split a tree in front of a group of early humans. The tree exploded into fire. The ground shook. The air cracked with a sound louder than anything they had ever heard.

Nobody died. But the brain needed to know why. Not what happened. Why. What caused it. Who caused it. What did it want. What does it mean.

The brain could not tolerate not knowing. So it invented an answer.

Something up there did that. Something powerful. Something invisible. Something with intentions. Something that could be angered and needed to be appeased.

There was nothing up there. There was electrical discharge between clouds. But the brain was not built to accept that explanation. The brain was built to survive. And survival requires knowing who is in charge, even when nobody is.

That moment, replicated millions of times across thousands of generations, is where religion began. Not in revelation. Not in truth. In a brain that could not handle uncertainty and invented an invisible agent to fill the gap.

There is now a precise scientific framework explaining exactly how that happens and why the same mechanism is running inside MAGA right now.

The Believing Brain

In 2011, Michael Shermer, psychologist, science historian, and founder of the Skeptics Society, published The Believing Brain. Shermer holds a position at Chapman University and has spent decades studying why humans believe things that are not true.

His central thesis overturned the assumption most people carry about how belief works. The common assumption is that people gather evidence, evaluate it rationally, and form beliefs based on what the evidence supports.

Shermer showed the opposite. Beliefs come first. The evidence comes second. The brain forms the belief through fast, automatic, unconscious processes. Then it goes looking for evidence to support the belief it already holds. It finds confirming evidence easily. It discards contradicting evidence automatically. And the person experiences the entire process as rational, evidence-based thinking. Even when it is nothing of the kind.