Fill In The [Blank]

Riggleman, a nonbeliever who was then a National Security Agency defense contractor, had come along for the ride, paying thousands in 2004 to indulge a lifelong fascination: Why do people – what kind of people – believe in Bigfoot?
What hunting Bigfoot taught a Republican congressman about politics

I always find stories like this interesting, because they're basically about social acceptance of certain beliefs, yet don't usually come out an say it. When the question of "Why do people – what kind of people – believe in [Blank]?" comes up, the allowable topics with which one can fill in the blank are circumscribed. If you use "crypitids" or "aliens" or "conspiracy theories" to fill in the blank, you're okay. Slot "the Resurrection" in there, however, and you're asking for trouble, despite the fact that, generally speaking, that there's about the same amount of evidence for all of them and when it comes down to it, they'll all about the same thing: how people want the world around them to work and/or what helps them feel a certain way about themselves and their lives. Society, however, demands a veto on certain means at arriving at understandings of and feelings about the world, and covers this with "facts."

And like most cases that are heard in the Court of Public Opinion, the verdicts are wildly inconsistent. Mainly because "Public Opinion" is something of a misnomer, in the grand scheme of things. The public is not really that unified. And so verdicts are never unanimous and are consensus less often than might be supposed. Instead, a number of them are the work of vocal minorities who care enough to go to the mat for them. And since there is no requirement that these groups be in sync about things, a particular set of feelings about the world may pass muster, and another set be shot down.

The belief systems that people use to buttress their subjective experience of (or desires for) the world tend to be most successful to the degree that they are not subjected to rigorous tests of proof in order to be accepted. Sometimes, this means that they're allowed to live in the gaps that standard measures of proof or knowledge leave and other times they're simply granted blanket exemption. This is, as I understand it, generally based on how they prompt others to feel. A person who is actively worried by someone else's belief system is likely to demand a higher burden of proof than someone who couldn't care less. Of course, cost is also a factor, especially when it comes to things like conspiracy theories; the expected burden of proof for a belief system tends to rise as the perception that there are individual or group costs to tolerance or indifference rises.

People who tramp around in the forests of the Olympic Peninsula looking for Sasquatch are, for the most part, considered harmless (if somewhat gullible and foolish) eccentrics. The belief in a resurrected Messiah is broadly-enough held that's effectively the default; it's defectors who are considered somewhat dangerous. Again, however, for the most part, seeing the atheistic as active threats to society as a whole is considered an extreme position. Being alarmed over the spread of Q-Anon or the idea that President Trump had a lawfully-won election literally stolen out from under him is more threatening to people who don't believe it (mainly because of concerns over the actions that believer's might take). These factors, more than the beliefs themselves, could do with more news coverage. But I suspect that the topic isn't particularly interesting.