What Is The Apologetic For Cognitive Dissonance?

[bluegreenearth]

From Wikipedia -

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and experiences psychological stress because of that. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein they try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency to function mentally in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. They tend to make changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance or by avoiding circumstances and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.

Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe.

According to Christian theology, God desires for people to make the freewill decision to believe he exists and be in a loving relationship with him. Once people freely choose to accept Christ as their one true Lord and savior, the Holy Spirit is claimed to descend upon them to reveal the truth of Christianity in such a way that it is undeniable. Consequently, we would expect cognitive dissonance to never occur in Christians if their sincere belief is true. Nevertheless, one of the primary functions of apologetics is help Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience.

Once the truth of Christianity is divinely revealed to people by the Holy Spirit, it should be impossible for these Christians to hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. After all, their freewill choice to trust the word of God and acknowledge Jesus's sacrifice for their sins will have satisfied God's criteria for granting them the gift of salvation. As such, we expect there should be no theological purpose for God not to insulate his true Christian followers from experiencing cognitive dissonance now that he has assured their place in his kingdom.

At the very least, if Christianity is true, any secular beliefs that would seem to contradict Biblical beliefs should not be more compelling to a true Christian. However, the fact that Christians routinely experience cognitive dissonance demonstrates that the secular beliefs are often more persuasive than the Biblical beliefs they seem to contradict. Otherwise, we would expect an inability for those secular beliefs to routinely elicit experiences of cognitive dissonance in true Christians.

So, what are the apologetic arguments for why apologetics is needed to help true Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience given the aforementioned considerations? Why does apologetics not become obsolete after people become true Christians, but instead, it remains an essential tool for suppressing the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience?

[Thomas123]

Friedrich Nietzsche

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Beyond_ ... horism_146

"And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

What an intellect!

Our spy glasses into the Cosmos have given all of us, new insights into God, which we need to internalize and deal with.

Friedrich Nietzsche Aphorism 71
"To stage as astronomer, So long as thou feelest the stars as an above thee, Thou lackest the eye of the discerning one"

Can we cut ourselves off from the revelationary truths of these universal images. Not without dissonance, according to Nietzsche.

[Difflugia]

There is, however, a sectional scale that obviously and actually refers to us and to life on this planet! We either accept these realities or we apply cognitive distancing techniques in order to massage our understandings towards a subjective sense of cohesion.

Theism has been announcing the magnitude and range of God for many millenia. Theists accept a reality that is beyond the abilities of human comprehension.

[...]

Denial of the actuality of human limits, is to attempt the cognitive construction of a black hole within our cognitive logic. It is like making a hole in the sand with the tide coming in. It requires the constant maintenance that is cognitive dissonance.

The "dissonance" is the conflict between two data. We receive dissonant information and draw dissonant conclusions all the time. Our brains are also wired to obsessively resolve those whenever we recognize them. "My friend has a red car, but he just drove up in a blue car" is a set of dissonant data with multiple possible resolutions, including "my friend bought a blue car since I saw him last," "the blue car is a rental," or "I was mistaken and his car was always blue."

When it becomes a problem (and when it becomes what's commonly called cognitive dissonance) is when the most parsimonious solution to a dissonance is one that creates a greater dissonance. "That person doesn't like me" and "I'm very likeable" is an easy example. One possible solution is "I was mistaken and I'm not very likeable," but that sets up other conflicts. "Unlikeable people are bad" and "I am not bad" previously coexisted without dissonance, but now that's being threatened. Do I accept the possibility that I'm not likeable and face the daunting task of reevaluating what might be a web of interconnected conclusions or do I look harder at the present dilemma? "That person doesn't like likeable people" is also a possible solution and it wouldn't upset as many conclusions that I already hold. Along the way, an ever-present shortcut is to lie to oneself, which often manifests as what you previously termed "denial" (as in, "denial of something I know to be true").

Which brings me back to your posts. I don't understand what's dissonant about the observations you're claiming. Is it something like "the night sky is awe-inspiring" paired with "awe-inspiring things have a creator?" Or maybe, "I am important" and "I am tiny and unimportant compared to the scale of the Universe?" "God made the Universe" and "God made me important" are very easy (and in my view, specious) solutions to those dilemmas.

The main thing that caused dissonance for me as I left Christianity was that so many other people still believed God was real. I was always a sciencey nerd, so "how did this come about without God" was never really a serious question for me. The vexing problem was that if there really were no gods, then the vast majority of people were wrong, which brings me to this statement you made earlier:

Many atheists seek atheistic conviction, through constant considerations of the minutia of the specific representations of the God concept, and the 'perceived' flaws that they self-discover within same. Isn't this a natural necessity of an atypical position, and an easy method to boot. This dissonancing often takes the form of single combat versions of " Your God does not exist because......."

You're right, in the sense that that's very close to the necessary resolution. The dissonance was between "a conclusion shared by most people is probably correct" and "I disagree with the conclusion held by most people." Since I was also aware of the psychological pressure to resolve internal conflicts easily, I also had to deal with the knowledge that a conclusion that agreed with those I had already drawn was suspect. The bulk of my interaction with the Bible, then, was framed by "if the Bible is not a divine record, then I would expect," which is quite close to your "single combat" scenario. Through the years, those questions have become a bit more refined ("if a copyist mistook a dalet as a resh" or "if the Deuteronomist wanted a monotheistic detail here"), but are still the same in essence. At the end of the day, though, the dissonance (or, rather, its resolution) that requires constant maintenance has nothing directly to do with the existence of God, but is "I consider evidence from enough sources to be sure that my conclusions are good ones." Circling the wagons is an ever-present temptation in the face of new information. When I feel myself doing that, I try to address it tout de suite.

[Thomas123]

There is, however, a sectional scale that obviously and actually refers to us and to life on this planet! We either accept these realities or we apply cognitive distancing techniques in order to massage our understandings towards a subjective sense of cohesion.

Theism has been announcing the magnitude and range of God for many millenia. Theists accept a reality that is beyond the abilities of human comprehension.

[...]

Denial of the actuality of human limits, is to attempt the cognitive construction of a black hole within our cognitive logic. It is like making a hole in the sand with the tide coming in. It requires the constant maintenance that is cognitive dissonance.

The "dissonance" is the conflict between two data. We receive dissonant information and draw dissonant conclusions all the time. Our brains are also wired to obsessively resolve those whenever we recognize them. "My friend has a red car, but he just drove up in a blue car" is a set of dissonant data with multiple possible resolutions, including "my friend bought a blue car since I saw him last," "the blue car is a rental," or "I was mistaken and his car was always blue."

When it becomes a problem (and when it becomes what's commonly called cognitive dissonance) is when the most parsimonious solution to a dissonance is one that creates a greater dissonance. "That person doesn't like me" and "I'm very likeable" is an easy example. One possible solution is "I was mistaken and I'm not very likeable," but that sets up other conflicts. "Unlikeable people are bad" and "I am not bad" previously coexisted without dissonance, but now that's being threatened. Do I accept the possibility that I'm not likeable and face the daunting task of reevaluating what might be a web of interconnected conclusions or do I look harder at the present dilemma? "That person doesn't like likeable people" is also a possible solution and it wouldn't upset as many conclusions that I already hold. Along the way, an ever-present shortcut is to lie to oneself, which often manifests as what you previously termed "denial" (as in, "denial of something I know to be true").

Which brings me back to your posts. I don't understand what's dissonant about the observations you're claiming. Is it something like "the night sky is awe-inspiring" paired with "awe-inspiring things have a creator?" Or maybe, "I am important" and "I am tiny and unimportant compared to the scale of the Universe?" "God made the Universe" and "God made me important" are very easy (and in my view, specious) solutions to those dilemmas.

The main thing that caused dissonance for me as I left Christianity was that so many other people still believed God was real. I was always a sciencey nerd, so "how did this come about without God" was never really a serious question for me. The vexing problem was that if there really were no gods, then the vast majority of people were wrong, which brings me to this statement you made earlier:

Many atheists seek atheistic conviction, through constant considerations of the minutia of the specific representations of the God concept, and the 'perceived' flaws that they self-discover within same. Isn't this a natural necessity of an atypical position, and an easy method to boot. This dissonancing often takes the form of single combat versions of " Your God does not exist because......."

You're right, in the sense that that's very close to the necessary resolution. The dissonance was between "a conclusion shared by most people is probably correct" and "I disagree with the conclusion held by most people." Since I was also aware of the psychological pressure to resolve internal conflicts easily, I also had to deal with the knowledge that a conclusion that agreed with those I had already drawn was suspect. The bulk of my interaction with the Bible, then, was framed by "if the Bible is not a divine record, then I would expect," which is quite close to your "single combat" scenario. Through the years, those questions have become a bit more refined ("if a copyist mistook a dalet as a resh" or "if the Deuteronomist wanted a monotheistic detail here"), but are still the same in essence. At the end of the day, though, the dissonance (or, rather, its resolution) that requires constant maintenance has nothing directly to do with the existence of God, but is "I consider evidence from enough sources to be sure that my conclusions are good ones." Circling the wagons is an ever-present temptation in the face of new information. When I feel myself doing that, I try to address it tout de suite.

Please be assured that this is debate and not hostility, Difflugia!
Please address the original assertion that I have elaborated on in my subsequent posts.


Thomas123 wrote:

The most obvious example of cognitive dissonance is the modern human rejection of the God concept. To maintain this psychological position despite our expanding cosmic knowledge requires a subjective obtuseness that must necessitate constant reinforcement and maintenance. Imho.

This is about the atheistic position.
This is not a numbers argument despite your personal reference to same.

The default conclusion is usually the best attended.

Explain how a non-God belief deals with the new realities before it without having to resort to constant dissonancing. How do they keep God out of this. What do they replace the God concept with. Do they suspend their enquiries and wait for the lions to go away. Can they do this without dissonancing. Nietzsche appears to say no , and I agree. Atheistic dissonancing is a cognitive epidemic! Imho

ps; Again ,I feel the need to repeat myself in light of your 'specious ' reference. What was all that important/unimportant stuff about, Difflugia?

Thomas123 wrote:
Theism
Not specifically Christianity, unless it becomes relevant by definition of the highlighted part (the God concept) I mean theism, or the acceptance and embracing of God's presence, regardless of the various subjective presentations of God worship that exist.

I associate cognitive dissonance with a rejection of this concept's underlying reality..the presence of God

[Thomas123]

How does the atheist deal with the indisputable and unfathomable realities announced by the Cosmic pictures? We know the scale and degree of our unknowable existence. To attempt denial of this obvious human position is to become a moth to a flame.
Atheists need to step back from this and basically 'suck it up'. Theists jumped this hedge thousands of years ago. You can not rationalize this in any effective way without the God concept. Imho

If we proceed with our usual 'Gun ho Joe' modus to this we will be annihilated by ,what Nietzsche referred to as...our desire to do!

There is no theistic call for colonization this time! Can an atheist accept the servitude of the ant? If not, they will need to massage their perceptions through constant and unrelenting sessions of dissonance. A more sympathetic engagement with theistic thought would probably be indicative of self-dissonancing therapies starting to take effect.

[Difflugia]

Please be assured that this is debate and not hostility, Difflugia!
Please address the original assertion that I have elaborated on in my subsequent posts.

I wasn't taking anything you wrote as being hostile. I think we must be talking past each other.

The most obvious example of cognitive dissonance is the modern human rejection of the God concept.

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that rejection of the God concept conflicts with an unstated idea or do you mean that rejecting God is a way of resolving the dissonance between two other incompatible data or conclusions? What two positions are dissonant?

To maintain this psychological position despite our expanding cosmic knowledge requires a subjective obtuseness that must necessitate constant reinforcement and maintenance. Imho.

This is about the atheistic position.

The OP is about if and how cognitive dissonance is acknowleged within Christian apologetics, but whatever.

This is not a numbers argument despite your personal reference to same.

The "numbers argument" wasn't an argument per se, but the source of some of the cognitive dissonance I dealt with while becoming atheist. I meant it as both an illustration of cognitive dissonance itself and to make the point that as an atheist, the dissonance I suffered wasn't from the kinds of information you seem to think it would be.

The default conclusion is usually the best attended.

Yes. That was part of the understanding that helped me overcome the idea that popularity implied correctness.

Explain how a non-God belief deals with the new realities before it without having to resort to constant dissonancing.

This is why I think we might be talking past each other a bit. What do you mean by "dissonancing?" New information either agrees with the conclusions I already hold or it's dissonant. I can't think of any cosmological data that have conflicted with my atheism, so I'm still trying to figure out what you have in mind.

How do they keep God out of this. What do they replace the God concept with.

The Cosmos doesn't seem consistent with theism in the first place. Non-uniform distribution plus inflation plus gravity plus time is sufficient to explain what we see. I've apparently already resolved the conflict somehow, but I don't know what exactly the conflict is. It's not self-evident.

Do they suspend their enquiries and wait for the lions to go away. Can they do this without dissonancing. Nietzsche appears to say no , and I agree. Atheistic dissonancing is a cognitive epidemic! Imho

What do you mean by "dissonancing?"

ps; Again ,I feel the need to repeat myself in light of your 'specious ' reference. What was all that important/unimportant stuff about, Difflugia?

In context, I meant that "God" is often used as a placeholder for (and has the same explanatory power as) "I don't know" when answering questions like "why am I important" or "how did the Universe get to be the way it is." As an answer, "God" seems to be more meaningful than "I don't know," but that meaning is illusory. It's specious.

I associate cognitive dissonance with a rejection of this concept's underlying reality..the presence of God

Again, to have dissonance, there must be at least two things to be dissonant. With what do you think the rejection of God conflicts?

[Difflugia]

How does the atheist deal with the indisputable and unfathomable realities announced by the Cosmic pictures? We know the scale and degree of our unknowable existence. To attempt denial of this obvious human position is to become a moth to a flame.
Atheists need to step back from this and basically 'suck it up'. Theists jumped this hedge thousands of years ago. You can not rationalize this in any effective way without the God concept. Imho

I'm still kind of guessing, but I think I see what you're driving at. The dissonance is between "humans are important," "tiny things are unimportant," and "the Universe is unfathomably huge."

One theist solution to the problem is "human beings are important, even if they're tiny, because God said so."

You have proposed an atheist solution: "humans are unimportant," but appear to think that it's not satisfactory.

Or do I still not understand what you're driving at?

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 25 by Difflugia]

What two positions are dissonant?
There are many!
Take the topic in hand.
How can a person dispute the God concept from the platform of complete bewilderment! Tackle the machinations of a peculiar and specific form of worship, by all means but do it from a shared understanding of our actualities.

Non-uniform distribution plus inflation plus gravity plus time is sufficient to explain what we see.

You have resolved a conflict with this! I find that incredulous! It is the ostrich response from an intelligent inquisitive human.

What do you mean by"dissonancing?"

Same as you! The action of resolving cognitive conflicts!

With what do you think the rejection of God conflicts?

The ability and desire to conclude rational hypothesis.

[Difflugia]

What two positions are dissonant?
There are many!
Take the topic in hand.
How can a person dispute the God concept from the platform of complete bewilderment! Tackle the machinations of a peculiar and specific form of worship, by all means but do it from a shared understanding of our actualities.

I don't know what you're driving at. There are no gods.

Non-uniform distribution plus inflation plus gravity plus time is sufficient to explain what we see.
You have resolved a conflict with this! I find that incredulous! It is the ostrich response from an intelligent inquisitive human.

I don't know why you are incredulous (or find that incredible). I also don't know what specifically you think I'm ignoring.

What do you mean by"dissonancing?"
Same as you! The action of resolving cognitive conflicts!

This is part of the communication problem, I think. "Dissonant" is the opposite of "consonant," which also means "harmonious." A dissonance is a disharmony; it's the conflict itself. I was reading "dissonancing" to mean the creation of internal conflicts rather than resolving them.

With what do you think the rejection of God conflicts?

The ability and desire to conclude rational hypothesis.

Since you haven't justified your opinion, all I can say is that I don't share it.

All you've given us so far is that it's unbelievable to you that atheists reject God (or "the God concept," if you see a difference) in the face of knowledge about the Cosmos. You haven't actually told us why you think that, though.

[Thomas123]

Difflugia:." A dissonance is a disharmony; it's the conflict itself. I was reading "dissonancing" to mean the creation of internal conflicts rather than resolving them.

The confusion here was my fault, I made the assumption that others knew what I was referring to, like washing yourself is about dirt, sort of thing! I seem to be in a hurry on this and thanks for the correction.


Explain the magnitude of the Cosmos and how that relates to you in a coherent way.

Describing it as Christmas decorations is not a legitimate response.

Do you consider the presence of alien lifeforms?
Do the numbers point to the certainty of this?
What do you do then?

I don't go that far into God! Theists humble themselves before God in worship.

Theism has acted both as a patron and as a sabateur to the Sciences. It has absorbed new knowledge into its existing doctrines of God's magnitude. It had no other choice. Can atheism, without God, organise a coherent response to Cosmic photographic evidence of the unknowable.

As Nietzsche points out, we are not under this thing, we are in it . To speculate otherwise is to have our heads in the sands of denial.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do"this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

I'd say this is a classic case of schizophrenia which is solved nowadays by Best practice psychiatry, i.e., scientific ECT, olanzapine (Zyprexa) and medical sleep assistance (diazepam class, eg. Vival or so).

The dissonance is the work of the Devil, of course! In modern language, it's the result of 1) bad parenting, 2) headless decisions of desire or 3) reward and punishment after criminal personality conversion. Some may say the Devil works through stupidity and the Original Sin as the sinful ways in the world we allow through a variety of expressions.

The answer to the dissonance is the work of the Devil! Ok?