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]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

"For the purposes of the treaty system, Antarctica is defined as all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. "


We need, as humans to at least attempt a working hypothesis of the unknowable, Cosmic realm. Use the Antarctic analogous reference.

Where do we start to announce this things borders!
The Antartic is us in many real ways and so is the Unknowable Realm.
The Antarctic treaty was enacted for purely utilitarian reasons. Nothing more than an unachievable objective that was posponed by world power strategists. They wanted it all but could only acquire a shared and ongoing interest in this potentially lucrative resource.

Man is already littering space, our strategic logics make this into a competitive human work space. Can we clamber over each other to get to the top of this hill!
Not without killing ourselves first.
Like the Antartic, it will be the folly of our uninformed actions that will make this Unknowable Realm deeply relevant to us all.
Maybe it is the Final Frontier...if we are looking for it's edge ...how prophetic!

[Don McIntosh]

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?

Interesting debate topic. For my part I've always seen atheism as a good example of cognitive dissonance.

Most atheists are former theists. And most former theists, while at one time believing that God is all-good and all-powerful, also experienced or witnessed great injustices and unwarranted suffering. This evidently led many of them to a belief that God himself is evil, i.e., indifferent, capricious, or even sadistic – clearly not easily reconcilable with a belief that God is all-good. Faced with the terrifying prospect of a God who is all-powerful but cruel, they understandably came to reject theism altogether rather than openly rebel against omnipotence. Of course they cannot acknowledge that they became atheists because they believed God to be a tyrant, as that would only replace one instance of cognitive dissonance with another: God has to exist to be a tyrant after all.

This would explain why, despite consistently describing God as more of a monster than a savior, the great majority of atheists claim to reject theism because it "lacks evidence" and not because they were disappointed, frightened or frustrated by their growing conviction that God is cruel and unjust. Christopher Hitchens sometimes shared the personal relief he felt upon realizing, so to speak, that there was no evidence that God exists, because if God existed he (Hitchens) would have found it a completely intolerable situation – so intolerable, I would add, that he would have to become an atheist.

Now in fairness, I should mention that some atheists do attempt to harness the reality of evil, including presumed evils attributed to God himself in Scripture, as a premise in arguments from evil against theism (though most philosophers nowadays agree that the argument from evil is not a successful defeater of theism). Alternatively, it's always possible that most atheists have indeed rejected theism strictly because of a perceived lack of evidence, and the fact that atheists almost without exception describe God as capricious and cruel rather than righteous or gracious is just a coincidence – but that seems unlikely.

As for your critique, it looks to be based on an understanding of Christian doctrine which says that Christians are free to believe or disbelieve prior to conversion, and after that are compelled to believe by the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t appear to be in keeping with NT teaching. Paul’s epistles, for instance, frequently caution against apostasy. The book of Hebrews warns Christians against taking on "an evil spirit of unbelief in departing from the living God." And in the Gospels, the disciples doubted to the point that Jesus asked them, "How is it that you have no faith?" In other words, the argument in the OP depends upon a fatalistic depiction of Christian theology that is simply not accurate.

[Don McIntosh]

Do you have evidence that “Christians routinely experience cognitive dissonance� despite the fact that Christian deny it?

Most of the intellectually honest Christians I converse with have disclosed to me that they routinely experience cognitive dissonance and consult apologists to help them suppress it.

This looks suspiciously circular. The question is whether there is evidence that Christians routinely experience cognitive dissonance even if they deny it. To answer that the Christians who are intellectually honest acknowledge their routine experiences of dissonance (and therefore those who deny such experiences are intellectually dishonest) is not evidence, but merely begs that question by reasserting that all Christians routinely experience cognitive dissonance whether they acknowledge it or not.

[Thomas123]

1.Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
2.Transcending Proof

If we apply these two to this,


"All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves,"


What issues appear for the atheistic position?

If you look at the thread title in isolation, cognitive dissonance, cuts both ways. It is this fact that compelled my submissions here rather than any other.

Do they go to God or George Lucas,?

[Diagoras]

Interesting debate topic. For my part I've always seen atheism as a good example of cognitive dissonance.

Most atheists are former theists.

You may be correct, but not all are. So any argument based on that premise is weakened to at least some extent.

...the great majority of atheists claim to reject theism because it "lacks evidence" and not because they were disappointed, frightened or frustrated by their growing conviction that God is cruel and unjust.

A few problems with this assertion: again, most atheists, plus this is clearly attributing your own interpretation to others’ claims.

Alternatively, it's always possible that most atheists have indeed rejected theism strictly because of a perceived lack of evidence, and the fact that atheists almost without exception describe God as capricious and cruel rather than righteous or gracious is just a coincidence – but that seems unlikely.

<bolding mine>
How generous to suggest that possibility! And again with the ‘most atheists...’

The more likely description of the christian god from an atheist will be ‘imaginary’. That they (often) point to tales from the Old Testament that show ‘divine cruelty’ and suchlike doesn’t mean that they believe in such a god. Just that they can see the absurdity in it.

I can accept that your example might be true for some people who are still in the process of deconversion: simultaneously believing in a god while ‘rejecting’ his crueler attributes. Ultimately, such people typically deal with that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance by ‘jumping off the fence one way or another’. However, your claim that atheism is an example of cognitive dissonance rests only on generalisations and opinion, so can be readily dismissed.

[Thomas123]

"Mars and my stupidity keep trying to kill me".( The Martian)

The Martian film is a great watch. We project our scientific accomplishments forward to show where we will be. We follow the smoke. It is full of godly kudos, and human spirit adventure, with even the Chinese chipping in to give a hand.(in a quasi-clandestine gesture, of course)
It is amazing that today as we threaten to sue this Country, with one hand, we accept PPE, from them with the other.(Again it must be paid for, we presume)

Let us all get a grip here!

This is Plato's cave with lava lamps installed. Atheists and theists, agnostics, philosophers, scientists, and whoever, need a consensus of appreciation on reality. In the prophetic words of the Jesus figure ...

Matthew12 : 25

“And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:�

[Tcg]

1.Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
2.Transcending Proof

If we apply these two to this,


"All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves,"


What issues appear for the atheistic position?

I can't think of any. Do you have a reason to think there would be?

If you look at the thread title in isolation, cognitive dissonance, cuts both ways. It is this fact that compelled my submissions here rather than any other.

Do they go to God or George Lucas,?

That would depend on the version of fantasy they enjoy.


Tcg

[Thomas123]

1.Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
2.Transcending Proof

If we apply these two to this,


"All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves,"


What issues appear for the atheistic position?

I can't think of any. Do you have a reason to think there would be?

If you look at the thread title in isolation, cognitive dissonance, cuts both ways. It is this fact that compelled my submissions here rather than any other.

Do they go to God or George Lucas,?

That would depend on the version of fantasy they enjoy.


Tcg

Tcg: I can't think of any.

All I can suggest here is that you approach the suggestion with an open mind and maybe you will think of one! The God concept is a lot of things but fantasy is not one of them. Some forms of God worship appear to resort to the fantastic in their doctrine and worship, but I was considering the foundation element for all theism, ie the presence of God. Just have a rethink about the implications of the Cosmic revelations for you and come back with something.

[Difflugia]

1.Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary claims.
2.Transcending Proof

If we apply these two to this,

"All in all, Hubble reveals an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe or so, but this number is likely to increase to about 200 billion as telescope technology in space improves,"

What issues appear for the atheistic position?

All I can suggest here is that you approach the suggestion with an open mind and maybe you will think of one! The God concept is a lot of things but fantasy is not one of them. Some forms of God worship appear to resort to the fantastic in their doctrine and worship, but I was considering the foundation element for all theism, ie the presence of God. Just have a rethink about the implications of the Cosmic revelations for you and come back with something.

So far, the entirety of your argument has been "look at the stars," spiked with "Nietzsche agrees with me."

You still haven't told us why you find this such a compelling argument for theism. I don't find it so now and didn't when I was a Christian.

You seem to also think that there must be some deep down dissonance between seeing the Universe and a failure to see any gods. I can't speak for anyone else, but assure you that there's not in my case. If you have the patience, I could maybe describe some observations and conclusions that I actually did find dissonant in the past and managed to work through. I offered some, in fact, but you asked me what they had to do with anything. In any case, "those stars are amazing, but there are no gods" has never been a problem for me and isn't likelly to become one now.

Modern cosmology renders gods superfluous. It doesn't disprove them or even argue against them, exactly, but it sure doesn't need them. Asking us to look again without giving us a better idea of what we're looking for will probably not do much to lead us an closer to the conclusion that it does.

[Don McIntosh]

Interesting debate topic. For my part I've always seen atheism as a good example of cognitive dissonance.

Most atheists are former theists.

You may be correct, but not all are. So any argument based on that premise is weakened to at least some extent.

That's fair. Likewise, not all Christians experience the cognitive dissonance attributed to Christians in the OP of this thread, and thus that argument also weakens accordingly.

The more likely description of the christian god from an atheist will be ‘imaginary’. That they (often) point to tales from the Old Testament that show ‘divine cruelty’ and suchlike doesn’t mean that they believe in such a god. Just that they can see the absurdity in it.

I can accept that your example might be true for some people who are still in the process of deconversion: simultaneously believing in a god while ‘rejecting’ his crueler attributes. Ultimately, such people typically deal with that uncomfortable cognitive dissonance by ‘jumping off the fence one way or another’. However, your claim that atheism is an example of cognitive dissonance rests only on generalisations and opinion, so can be readily dismissed.

Most of that seems reasonable to me. Given your objections, I would be happy to revise my argument to say that in many instances atheism appears to be the product of cognitive dissonance, if not an actively dissonant state. As you noted, once the conflicted believer jumps to one side or other of the fence, the dissonance resolves in principle. Even then I would note that if demographics has anything to say about it, that resolution is more often than not found by getting back to the theistic side of the fence.

What still fascinates me here, though, is that after literally decades of reading various deconversion stories, I can't recall more than maybe a half dozen atheists explain their deconversion by saying, in effect, "I abandoned my faith because the God I believed in increasingly seemed cruel and tyrannical to me, and that conflicted with my prior belief that God is good." Instead most of what I get is assertions that there is "no evidence" (not even a shred) that God exists, along with general appeals to the wonders of science. And not once have I heard a professing atheist break down and confess, "I was angry with God and decided not to give him the satisfaction of acknowledging his existence" (though I have heard it in the context of conversion rather than deconversion stories!).

Yet I think it's highly likely that at least a few professing atheists, if strapped to a polygraph, could not deny being upset with God without getting flagged for a lie. If you think about it, the prospect of a public atheist harboring private belief is really no more difficult to imagine than a televangelist using religion simply to make money while not actually believing in God at all. And we all know there are a few of those...