Cognitive Dissonance

[BL2KTN]

Credit to Bhtmse for giving me the idea of this thread.

I'm just curious... do the vast majority of Christians seek to avoid conversation with non-believers on the veracity of Christianity because of the cognitive dissonance that it inevitably creates inside their own minds? I know that when I was a Christian, I enjoyed the conversations because I only wanted the truth, no matter where it led me. Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

And also, when the cognitive dissonance is more than the determined Christian can bear, do they then find a way to lie to their own self in order to maintain faith? I know I wasn't capable of such, but are others?

Just curious,

BL

 

[CabVet]

I am sure this is one of the reasons why they avoid conversation.

 

[RDKirk]

Credit to Bhtmse for giving me the idea of this thread.

I'm just curious... do the vast majority of Christians seek to avoid conversation with non-believers on the veracity of Christianity because of the cognitive dissonance that it inevitably creates inside their own minds? I know that when I was a Christian, I enjoyed the conversations because I only wanted the truth, no matter where it led me. Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

And also, when the cognitive dissonance is more than the determined Christian can bear, do they then find a way to lie to their own self in order to maintain faith? I know I wasn't capable of such, but are others?

Just curious,

BL

I'm not sure what you're talking about, because there certainly are threads where such conversations occur.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't know how common it is, and I don't blame a Christian site for having Christian only areas.

Maybe it is fairly common, but when I was a Christian I always enjoyed trying to convince people there was a God, etc.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Credit to Bhtmse for giving me the idea of this thread.

I'm just curious... do the vast majority of Christians seek to avoid conversation with non-believers on the veracity of Christianity because of the cognitive dissonance that it inevitably creates inside their own minds? I know that when I was a Christian, I enjoyed the conversations because I only wanted the truth, no matter where it led me. Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

And also, when the cognitive dissonance is more than the determined Christian can bear, do they then find a way to lie to their own self in order to maintain faith? I know I wasn't capable of such, but are others?

Just curious,

BL

Do you mean in the same way that Ex-Christian.net wouldn't let me become a member of their website? I'd like to think I could cause some cognitive dissonance on the part of ex-christians, but that would be hoping for way too much, I know.

 

[lesliedellow]

Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

If you want to know the reason for that, just visit some of the sites which are awash with new atheists trying to prove to themselves how clever they are. We do not want this site to become another troll fest, thanks very much.

 

[mindlight]

Credit to Bhtmse for giving me the idea of this thread.

I'm just curious... do the vast majority of Christians seek to avoid conversation with non-believers on the veracity of Christianity because of the cognitive dissonance that it inevitably creates inside their own minds? I know that when I was a Christian, I enjoyed the conversations because I only wanted the truth, no matter where it led me. Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

And also, when the cognitive dissonance is more than the determined Christian can bear, do they then find a way to lie to their own self in order to maintain faith? I know I wasn't capable of such, but are others?

Just curious,

BL

The bible talks about 2 main approaches to non Christians.

Engagement and separation.

If you engage with people whose basic assumptions about reality are false then you are at risk in sharing in their own Cognitive Dissonance with the heart of all reality but doing so in order to bring them back to the Truth and Christs love for them is to follow His example.

The ultimate and final model is separation. Those who have foolishly chosen to deny God will go to hell and those who have not will be with God forever. Many consider throwing pearls to pigs to be a waste of time. God will draw those he is saving to Himself while those who are perishing will carry on down their highway to hell regardless.

Generally i choose to engage but sometimes I wonder if i am become too worldly as a result. It is easier not to discuss the big bug bears of atheists - such as sex, evolution , suffering and the foolishness of talking about truth without accepting the Truth. But God placed me in the world and not a monastery.

But you cannot take many of these words with you to the next life as the subject matter is alto often false, soiled or broken.
Those whose only concern is for God have no time to wrestle with the complexes and hangups of the lost but God does this so maybe there is a denial and dissonance there also at least among the most superspiritual and self righteous Christians

 

[Chesterton]

Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

No, it's a display of the fact that in the past many atheists refused to engage in civil discussion, and were just here to be mean.

And also, when the cognitive dissonance is more than the determined Christian can bear, do they then find a way to lie to their own self in order to maintain faith?

No. I woke up feeling a bit cognitively dissonant this morning; I used Tough Actin' Tinactin. Cleared it right up.

 

[RDKirk]

Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

I participate on some photography forums and some building science forums. I notice that they all have specific areas where only professionals may participate, and they all have limited areas where conversation on topics other than the forum purpose may be discussed.

Like a photography forum will limit some areas only to professional photographers, a Christian forum will limit some areas only to Christians; like a photography forum will allow non-photography topics in only a few areas, a Christian forum will allow non-Christian topics in only a few areas.

Why should this seem strange to you? That's not a rhetorical question. Why does that seem strange to you?

 

[Colter]

Its more the annoyance of the hecklers who lost their faith but return to bedazzle people with the illusion of freedom provided in their decided estrangement from God. The way of the fool seems right to him, and it would seem more right if he had company.


Said Jesus in the Bible:

"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.…"​

Why do the heathen rage? UB 1955:

“The heathen are not without excuse when they rage at us. Because their outlook is small and narrow, they are able to concentrate their energies enthusiastically. Their goal is near and more or less visible; wherefore do they strive with valiant and effective execution. You who have professed entrance into the kingdom of heaven are altogether too vacillating and indefinite in your teaching conduct. The heathen strike directly for their objectives; you are guilty of too much chronic yearning. If you desire to enter the kingdom, why do you not take it by spiritual assault even as the heathen take a city they lay siege to? You are hardly worthy of the kingdom when your service consists so largely in an attitude of regretting the past, whining over the present, and vainly hoping for the future. Why do the heathen rage? Because they know not the truth. Why do you languish in futile yearning? Because you obey not the truth. Cease your useless yearning and go forth bravely doing that which concerns the establishment of the kingdom.​

 

[Rubiks]

Sometimes I get tired of talking to nonbelievers (especially village atheist types, which there are much less of those on this forum) because of the silly nonsensical objections i keep hearing.

"hurr durr God can't make a square circle" What?

"hurr durr why would God rape virgin mary"

(Yes, I've actually heard the last one, but not on this board)

It just seems to for some nonbelievers, their objections are really just nitpicking and have nothing to do with "reason" even for one second.

just my two pence.

 

[Resha Caner]

We hear a lot about cognitive dissonance. It does seem this forum is for thinkers. All the mudslinging aside wherein one side is always accusing the other of being illogical - and admitting the possibility that maybe some here actually are illogical - everyone seems to at least make the attempt to think through issues. Maybe that's the nature of a forum dependent on the written word.

But are there other kinds of dissonance? Emotional dissonance? Experiential dissonance? Presumptive dissonance?

After all, despite the predominance of thinkers in this forum, it doesn't seem everyone in the world considers thinking the way to address all issues.

 

[BL2KTN]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, because there certainly are threads where such conversations occur.

There are few Christians willing to participate in them, and of the ones who do, a significant number do not possess typical mental prowess.

Do you mean in the same way that Ex-Christian.net wouldn't let me become a member of their website? I'd like to think I could cause some cognitive dissonance on the part of ex-christians, but that would be hoping for way too much, I know.

Your track record doesn't suggest to me that you would present very compelling information to cause mental strain. That said, if I were in charge of such a website, I would think it better that Christians such as yourself have access to most of the site.

If you want to know the reason for that, just visit some of the sites which are awash with new atheists trying to prove to themselves how clever they are. We do not want this site to become another troll fest, thanks very much.

There is a difference in meaningful discussion and trolling - and a differing opinion is not evidence of a troll. Moderation is the key.

The ultimate and final model is separation. Those who have foolishly chosen to deny God will go to hell and those who have not will be with God forever. Many consider throwing pearls to pigs to be a waste of time. God will draw those he is saving to Himself while those who are perishing will carry on down their highway to hell regardless.

So you believe that the creator of the cosmos will set someone on fire forever, in an act that makes Hitler look like Ghandi, for the crime of not believing that the specific Christian god is the one true god. Those who believe in any other god deserve to burn in unimaginable pain for trillions of years. But the child rapist who converts on his deathbed deserves paradise forever.

I can see why your teachings require you to disengage at some point with a non-believer. Reasonable thinking might actually prevail.

No, it's a display of the fact that in the past many atheists refused to engage in civil discussion, and were just here to be mean.

Why not just moderate those who were trying to be mean? I can rattle off a dozen or so atheist posters on here who are extremely courteous and kind, even if they disagree with Christianity.

I participate on some photography forums and some building science forums. I notice that they all have specific areas where only professionals may participate, and they all have limited areas where conversation on topics other than the forum purpose may be discussed.

I think some of you are focusing in on one specific thing I said in regards to cognitive dissonance as opposed to discussing the topic of this thread: cognitive dissonance. Do the photography forums block people from using their forums if they do not own a camera?

Like a photography forum will limit some areas only to professional photographers, a Christian forum will limit some areas only to Christians; like a photography forum will allow non-photography topics in only a few areas, a Christian forum will allow non-Christian topics in only a few areas.

And I'm fine with forums being on-topic. I think non-believers here may be kept in very limited areas because they would be too on-topic. But really that goes back to what the entire point of this thread is (as opposed to the rules of this forum): cognitive dissonance.

Does the logic of non-believers cause cognitive dissonance in the believers?

Its more the annoyance of the hecklers who lost their faith but return to bedazzle people with the illusion of freedom provided in their decided estrangement from God. The way of the fool seems right to him, and it would seem more right if he had company.

I don't think that's why any of the non-believers post here. Online strangers make for poor company.

Sometimes I get tired of talking to nonbelievers (especially village atheist types, which there are much less of those on this forum) because of the silly nonsensical objections i keep hearing.

"hurr durr God can't make a square circle" What?

"hurr durr why would God rape virgin mary"

(Yes, I've actually heard the last one, but not on this board)

It just seems to for some nonbelievers, their objections are really just nitpicking and have nothing to do with "reason" even for one second.

just my two pence.

Maybe that passes as reasons for non-belief in high school, but I have yet to see any non-believer utter such stupidity on these forums. Feel free to click the first link in my signature: "The Bible Is Not the Inspired Word of God". I debate a leading Christian apologist on this forum and easily win the debate... see if my reasons look anything like what you supplied. Then come back and tell me if it caused you any cognitive dissonance. I would love to hear an honest reply about your thought processes while reading it.

We hear a lot about cognitive dissonance. It does seem this forum is for thinkers. All the mudslinging aside wherein one side is always accusing the other of being illogical - and admitting the possibility that maybe some here actually are illogical - everyone seems to at least make the attempt to think through issues. Maybe that's the nature of a forum dependent on the written word.

Thank you for recognizing the topic of this thread, Resha. And yes, I agree.

But are there other kinds of dissonance? Emotional dissonance? Experiential dissonance? Presumptive dissonance?

After all, despite the predominance of thinkers in this forum, it doesn't seem everyone in the world considers thinking the way to address all issues.

I can't conceive of an issue that I don't consider "thinking" to be the beginning of the solution. I do like that you brought up emotional dissonance - and I wonder if it is entirely separate. Brings us back to the mid-brain versus neocortex issue.

 

[bhsmte]

Credit to Bhtmse for giving me the idea of this thread.

I'm just curious... do the vast majority of Christians seek to avoid conversation with non-believers on the veracity of Christianity because of the cognitive dissonance that it inevitably creates inside their own minds? I know that when I was a Christian, I enjoyed the conversations because I only wanted the truth, no matter where it led me. Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

And also, when the cognitive dissonance is more than the determined Christian can bear, do they then find a way to lie to their own self in order to maintain faith? I know I wasn't capable of such, but are others?

Just curious,

BL

IMO, it depends on the type of Christian in regards to the level of cognitive dissonance they will experience, when you have open discussions on topics they may go against an important part of their belief.

There are some Christians on this board, who do not deny well evidenced science and in fact, they embrace it. There are others, that have a part of their belief structure, which is threatened by well evidenced science and this creates a completely different situation.

To those who hold to beliefs that are challenged by science, what you will see from them is very predictable and quite easy to identify. For instance, if 99% of biologists firmly agree with the TOE, they will find the one out of 100 that questions the TOE and latch onto that source with a death grip, all while ignoring the 99% - confirmation bias. When strong evidence is presented that may refute a part of their belief structure, they will kick in their denial defense mechanism and come up with all sorts of creative ways to explain why the evidence is not valid. Lastly, those who are trying to escape the throws of cognitive dissonance, will typically contradict themselves quite often, while trying to reason themselves out of the same.

The one's who hold fundamentalist types of beliefs, have their defense mechanisms working overtime, to ward off the cognitive dissonance and I can only imagine the inner turmoil that this creates in their minds.

 

[Resha Caner]

Thank you for recognizing the topic of this thread, Resha. And yes, I agree.

Just trying to make the thread more than a tit-for-tat. I really doubt anyone is going to admit they are experiencing cognitive dissonance. It is almost always an assessment one opponent makes of the other. And the reciepient almost always declares the diagnosis unfounded. You may get a lot of, "Oh, yeah! Well actually it's you that has the cognitive dissonance!" but not much other than that.

So, suppose all the non-believers here agree a bunch of Christians are experiencing a cognitive dissonance. I'm curious where you'll go from there.

I can't conceive of an issue that I don't consider "thinking" to be the beginning of the solution. I do like that you brought up emotional dissonance - and I wonder if it is entirely separate. Brings us back to the mid-brain versus neocortex issue.

Brain function isn't something I've spent a lot of time studying. So, the sources I'm aware of came and went - I probably won't be able to find them again.

But I do recall several instances of human action that don't require "thinking" - depending on how one defines that. There are the obvious autononmous systems - the circulatory system, etc. Then, I believe some studies have found that in situations where people say they reacted by instinct that the body did indeed react before the mind perceived the reaction. IOW, it was more a report to the brain of what the body was doing than the brain commanding it. Finally, I vaguely recall something about a study finding that decisions once thought to be carried out by the brain have been found occurring in other organs - that, for example, the heart "decided" something for the body not associated with the traditional circulatory system.

Anyway, the experiential/presumptive aspect is the interesting piece to me. If that's not what you want for this thread, I'll bow out.

 

[BL2KTN]

IMO, it depends on the type of Christian in regards to the level of cognitive dissonance they will experience, when you have open discussions on topics they may go against an important part of their belief.

Agreed.

Lastly, those who are trying to escape the throws of cognitive dissonance, will typically contradict themselves quite often, while trying to reason themselves out of the same.

But here's the thing: do they know they're doing it? And if so, how does that alleviate the dissonance?

The one's who hold fundamentalist types of beliefs, have their defense mechanisms working overtime, to ward off the cognitive dissonance and I can only imagine the inner turmoil that this creates in their minds.

If they could only realize that letting go of obvious errors is liberating... that anxiety is unnecessary. But you know, I also think a lot about formative years. I heard a former Amish person say that even though he knows the Amish beliefs weren't literally true, he still struggles with feeling judgment for himself from within his own mind, just because he was raised with one set of values.

 

[BL2KTN]

So, suppose all the non-believers here agree a bunch of Christians are experiencing a cognitive dissonance. I'm curious where you'll go from there.

Just curious how the believers cope with it.

But I do recall several instances of human action that don't require "thinking" - depending on how one defines that. There are the obvious autononmous systems - the circulatory system, etc. Then, I believe some studies have found that in situations where people say they reacted by instinct that the body did indeed react before the mind perceived the reaction. IOW, it was more a report to the brain of what the body was doing than the brain commanding it. Finally, I vaguely recall something about a study finding that decisions once thought to be carried out by the brain have been found occurring in other organs - that, for example, the heart "decided" something for the body not associated with the traditional circulatory system.

If you want to start a thread about the topic of "thinking", I'll be happy to hop in and weigh on a field I truly love.

Anyway, the experiential/presumptive aspect is the interesting piece to me. If that's not what you want for this thread, I'll bow out.

Hopefully we'll cover it in great detail.

 

[bhsmte]

Agreed.



But here's the thing: do they know they're doing it? And if so, how does that alleviate the dissonance?



If they could only realize that letting go of obvious errors is liberating... that anxiety is unnecessary. But you know, I also think a lot about formative years. I heard a former Amish person say that even though he knows the Amish beliefs weren't literally true, he still struggles with feeling judgment for himself from within his own mind, just because he was raised with one set of values.

Do they know they are doing it? Defense mechanisms that have developed in people to protect something (a deeply held belief for example), kick in automatically, when that belief is threatened. Think of the normal response many of us have to very bad news. The first reaction is typically some sort of denial, we just don't want to believe it is true. Most people, eventually acknowledge reality and they move on from the denial, but when you are dealing with someone with a deep psychological need to believe something, they will remain in denial and add in a rationalization to keep believing what they do, despite evidence to the contrary.

It really comes down to the individual psychological makeup and whether a person is willing to deal with the short term pain of acknowledging their belief was wrong, or whether the continued efforts to protect the belief are more important. Some choose the former, some choose the latter.

A good analogy of cognitive dissonance in simple terms would be a fan of a sports team and they live and die with their team. Let's say, they are playing their rival and they get beat in the game and this creates cognitive dissonance because there is evidence, that the rival team is better than the team they live and die with. So, how do they ward off the dissonance; they may say the referees made a bunch of bad calls that cost them the game, they may say the coach cost them the game by doing stupid things, etc. etc.. Basically, any type of rationalization, to avoid acknowledgment, they got beat fair and square and the rival has a better team.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just curious how the believers cope with it.

You think they deal with it differently than non-believers? Or do you think non-believers never experience it?

I was a raging scientific realist at one point, but the data I collected for my engineering career just wasn't supporting that position. I reached a major "oh crap" point in my career that sent me on a philosophical journey, and at the end of it I basically became an instrumentalist - even changed jobs. It seems most non-believers here believe in some kind of scientific realism or empiricism, and I used to hope my experience would be helpful to them.

Not so, it seems.

For a long time I wondered why that was. After much pondering, it seems to me it comes down to differences in experience and the assumptions we make based on those experiences. It seems an issue of incommensurability - that people who haven't shared my journey honestly can't understand what I'm saying.

For what it's worth, I've had similarly jarring experiences on the religious side of the spectrum. It's just that it didn't cause my faith to collapse because my faith isn't based on me, just as my friends and family don't exist on the basis of my rationalizations.

Anyway, my points are: 1) I don't think cognitive dissonance only happens to believers, 2) I don't think believers handle it differently - they probably handle it in the same variety of ways as unbelievers, 3) much of what is labeled as cognitive dissonance is really just frustration by the person's opponent, 4) incommensurability seems more the root issue to me.

 

[bhsmte]

You think they deal with it differently than non-believers? Or do you think non-believers never experience it?

I was a raging scientific realist at one point, but the data I collected for my engineering career just wasn't supporting that position. I reached a major "oh crap" point in my career that sent me on a philosophical journey, and at the end of it I basically became an instrumentalist - even changed jobs. It seems most non-believers here believe in some kind of scientific realism or empiricism, and I used to hope my experience would be helpful to them.

Not so, it seems.

For a long time I wondered why that was. After much pondering, it seems to me it comes down to differences in experience and the assumptions we make based on those experiences. It seems an issue of incommensurability - that people who haven't shared my journey honestly can't understand what I'm saying.

For what it's worth, I've had similarly jarring experiences on the religious side of the spectrum. It's just that it didn't cause my faith to collapse because my faith isn't based on me, just as my friends and family don't exist on the basis of my rationalizations.

Anyway, my points are: 1) I don't think cognitive dissonance only happens to believers, 2) I don't think believers handle it differently - they probably handle it in the same variety of ways as unbelievers, 3) much of what is labeled as cognitive dissonance is really just frustration by the person's opponent, 4) incommensurability seems more the root issue to me.

Cognitive dissonance is experienced by everyone, but to varying degrees. Just as, we all use denial at times as a defense mechanism, but again to varying degrees.

With some people, they can not get to the point of acknowledging information that may go against a tightly held belief and they will experience cognitive dissonance to a much higher degree and they will also develop defense mechanisms that become so strong, they will not let anything past that threatens the belief.