More specifically, an external locus of control that can fester into a permanently external locus of control.
See, when something *happens*, lets say, you get a B in a class you really wanted to get an A in, you have two options.
1-- I really didnt study as hard as I could have.See the difference? The first options were from an 'internal' locus of control, and the second options were from an 'external' locus of control. From birth, theists have an external locus of control not available to atheists: Gods. And from a very young age they are encouraged to take advantage of this fact-- Pray to God for this, pray to God for that, ask and ye shall receive.
Hey! That class was pretty hard! An A would have been nice, but I worked hard for that B!
Okay, next semester I am NOT going out drinking every Wednesday-- its effecting my Thursday classes, even the easy ones.
2-- That professor didnt like me because Im a pre-med. She never gives As to pre-meds.
I would have gotten an A if I had a good teacher.
That group project totally screwed me over. That dudes idea was so dumb.
I think most normal healthy people, atheist or theist, have a reasonable balance of the two. We might say something from category 2 while venting with our friends, while in our head we know the answer is really something from category 1... But the fact remains that there is a big, honking deity hanging out in category 2 for theists, and if not kept in check, clearly has an adverse effect on the theists ability to interact with the rest of society. One can become so reliant on an external locus of control that they simply lack the ability to come to a conclusion from category 1, even when its appropriate.
Example A-- Creationists.
During the Great Cottage Cheese Debate, Sally made some unwise decisions. Under no uncertain terms, he proclaimed that I purposefully misled people in my critique of Behe and danced around UD singing 'literature bluffing!' Now, ignore the humorous irony for a moment, and the fact that no one from the IDC Camp has addressed my essay 'scientifically', and take a look at his 'apology' to me on UD:
My third loose end which I would like to tie up is that I would like to apologize to Ms. Smith if I have said anything that may be construed as an accusation of dishonesty on her part.He didnt make any accusations-- other people 'misconstrued' them to look like accusations.
Perhaps I made some ill-tempered remarks, but it was not my intent to accuse her of lying or dishonesty.
Ms. Smith even conceded the following here about the NON-novelty of Vpu in HIV here:Nononono! Vpu isnt a new gene created in the past 100 years! The original Vpu probably originated a long time agoHer admission relates to something I hammered on here.
But I would admonish Ms. Smith that she perhaps under-appreciates the level of expertise in the ID community in the field of information dynamics within biology. And judging from her writings and those of most in evolutionary biology, I think her knowledge of the information science and technology leaves much to be desired. The typical ID theorist is light years ahead of the typical evolutionary biologist in these matters. They may not like it, but that is the state of affairs. I encourage her to set her ego aside and revisit her critique of Behe. There is a chance she is not rendering a charitable understanding of the writings of this biochemist for a lay audience.
He just made some ill tempered remarks, thats all!
Look, she even conceded his point!**
Ms. Smith doesnt know anything about HIV.
Yes, what a wonderful apology! The only thing that even comes close to an internal locus of control is "I perhaps said some ill tempered remarks..." not really taking any responsibility for his actions at all.
Well, just in case any of you might think that was an isolated incident, Dear Bill Dembski has gone and done the same damn thing today (from PZ-- I dont click on UD links, nor should you):
I mean in no way to mitigate the gravity of Baylor's wrong in censoring the research of Robert Marks and his Evolutionary Informatics Lab.Translation: BAYLOR STARTED IT!!!!
I hurt my family and lost about three weeks of productive work by being consumed with anger about the injustice against Robert Marks.
...leave justice in the hands of a God.
Another fine apology!
Another fine example of special treatment for Creationists. Why dont Creationists have to take responsibility for their actions like the rest of us? You screw up, you apologize-- why cant Creationists do that? Or are they psychologically broken, unable to interact with society on a normal level?
Why cant Creationists take responsibility for their choices?
** That 'quote' is a quote-mine from a month before CCC found my essay, and I gave that link to him to answer his question, and he ignored it in favor of harassing me. See full quote here.