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?

[Zzyzx]

.

All I can suggest here is that you approach the suggestion with an open mind and maybe you will think of one!

Speaking of 'an open mind', consider the definition of fantasy below

The God concept is a lot of things but fantasy is not one of them.

Fantasy is defined as: imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained. the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing. a mental image, especially when unreal or fantastic; vision: www.dictionary.com

Imagining an omnipotent, omniscient entity seems to fit the definition of fantasy quite well.

Some forms of God worship appear to resort to the fantastic in their doctrine and worship,

What form of God worship does NOT involve belief in invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities?

Have any such entities been shown to be anything more than products of imagination?

but I was considering the foundation element for all theism, ie the presence of God.

Has the god concept been shown, with verifiable evidence, to be anything more than imagination?

Note: I think so, Take my word for it, Many believe, He (or this book) says so, "Figure it out for yourself" do not constitute verifiable evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

Kindly demonstrate to readers how without belief in gods involves cognitive dissonance

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."

It might be prudent to read threads in these debates and to consult www.clergyproject.org and www.exchristian.net

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.

That seems like a reasonable position. When there is no verifiable evidence to support fanciful tales and claims of knowledge about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities, one is well advised to refuse to believe they are anything more than products of human imagination.

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!).

One who is 'without belief in gods' has no reason to be 'angry with god' " perhaps angry with preachers and promoters who indoctrinate children to believe god tales.

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.

Speculation noted.

How is it that many Theists seem to know SO much about Atheists? Do they learn in Sunday school or from sermons?

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...

There is no profit to be made by being without belief in gods.

[Tcg]

All I can suggest here is that you approach the suggestion with an open mind and maybe you will think of one!

What suggestion would that be? Unless I overlooked it, you've provided none.


Tcg

[Thomas123]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Thomas123 wrote:
The God concept is a lot of things but fantasy is not one of them.
Zzyzx wrote
Fantasy is defined as: imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained. the forming of mental images, especially wondrous or strange fancies; imaginative conceptualizing. a mental image, especially when unreal or fantastic; vision: www.dictionary.com

I do not want you to believe anything i say.
I do not want you to not believe what I say.

I want you to recognise the inherent dissonance within the atypical position of God denial that is atheism. Only you can do that.

Let's euphemistically call atheism ' fantasy', (it is a much deeper cognitive glitch, than that akin to a computer error of some sort, imho)

Fantasy:,"imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained"

1,300,000 earths contained within a medium star, called the Sun.
100,000,000,000 stars of various sizes in The Milky Way Galaxy
1 trillion stars in the Andromeda Galaxy
200+ billion galaxies in the perceived Universe
To infinity and beyond

Is this fantasy or fact?
Are you getting strange images? Are you having imaginative conceptualizations? Is this 'unreal'?

Do you want the truth? (Atheism does)
You can't handle the truth! (Atheism can't) imho

Thank you Zzyzx, for your engagement with my submissions!

[Thomas123]

Post 36
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:

Towards a Consensual Reality Appreciation Treaty

Theism brings the God concept to the negotiation table in all its forms.

Currently, atheism, is little more than a crusade. It will declare its truth on the elimination of it's own falsehood.The net result of this crusade has been the proliferation, the dispersal and the modification of theistic viruses in the cognitive space. To suggest that atheism has been a source of reflective correction for theism ,defies bewilderment. It is a scam vaccine, imho.

The unknown is not to be trifled with.
As stated previously, we are a moth to this cosmic flame,and selective amnesia of this things scale will destroy us. Stick or twist! Make an atheistic ,rational case for not twisting. Acknowledge the human position and it's inherent precariousness within your logic!

If an atheist is selective in their extractions from reality then they are little more than another form of God worship. This broad pantheon of atheistic anti-Gods is essentially meaningless, as a negotiation package. It provides no rational alternative to the God concept except to expound it's resistance to same.

The obvious default premise to work from is the presence of God.

An alternative to the God concept, if there is one, should at least have it's own reasoning on Cosmic purpose that is relevant to the actuality of the human condition.
Something like, this is too big for us and there exists a domain beyond our human capabilities, oops! That would be God, ...now I've gone circular in my efforts to help this muddle.

What is the alternative, when working from the hypotheses of the Unknown
Atheism!
Not this time!

[Thomas123]

So far I have this appreciation of the cosmic revelations from what appears to be a non theistic audience...not much conviction here! Most of this references itself to a counter of my own submission, perhaps with the exception of the first one, which is not expanded upon.

Post 25 Difflugia

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

Post 35 Tcg
I can't think of any. Do you have a reason to think there would be?

Post 41 Zzyzx
Has the god concept been shown, with verifiable evidence, to be anything more than imagination
...................

Start from somewhere new.
Example: Declare life on Earth to be an accidental anomaly within our Solar System.
Now, what's next?.....

[Zzyzx]

.

Fantasy:,"imagination, especially when extravagant and unrestrained"

1,300,000 earths contained within a medium star, called the Sun.
100,000,000,000 stars of various sizes in The Milky Way Galaxy
1 trillion stars in the Andromeda Galaxy
200+ billion galaxies in the perceived Universe
To infinity and beyond

Is this fantasy or fact?
Are you getting strange images? Are you having imaginative conceptualizations? Is this 'unreal'?

What has any of that to do with Atheism (which means: without belief in gods)?

Do you want the truth? (Atheism does)
You can't handle the truth! (Atheism can't) imho

To what 'truth' do you refer?

Again, Atheism means 'without belief in gods'.

What verifiable evidence can you present to indicate the existence of 'gods'?

Thank you Zzyzx, for your engagement with my submissions!

It is a pleasure.

[Zzyzx]

.

Currently, atheism, is little more than a crusade.

Atheism means: Without belief in gods " period " full stop.

Your posts seem to indicate a distorted concept of Atheism.

Consider:

Theism = belief in gods
Atheism = no belief in gods

It will declare its truth on the elimination of it's own falsehood.

What 'truth' or 'falsehood' in I don't believe your god tales?

The net result of this crusade has been the proliferation, the dispersal and the modification of theistic viruses in the cognitive space. To suggest that atheism has been a source of reflective correction for theism ,defies bewilderment. It is a scam vaccine, imho.

Opinion noted

The unknown is not to be trifled with.

The unknown is to be studied " not chalked up to mysterious proclaimed 'spirits'.

As stated previously, we are a moth to this cosmic flame,and selective amnesia of this things scale will destroy us. Stick or twist! Make an atheistic ,rational case for not twisting. Acknowledge the human position and it's inherent precariousness within your logic!

Opinion noted

If an atheist is selective in their extractions from reality then they are little more than another form of God worship.

How, exactly, is without belief in gods a form of god worship?

This broad pantheon of atheistic anti-Gods is essentially meaningless,

Atheism does not equate to anti-gods " but to lack belief in gods.

as a negotiation package.

No negotiation is required to disbelieve god tales. Thousands of 'gods' are proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by humans. Disbelief in any or all of them requires no negotiation.

Those who promote worship one of the 'gods' are welcome to make their case (negotiation) with verifiable evidence. (Verifiable means capable of being checked for truth and accuracy).

It provides no rational alternative to the God concept except to expound it's resistance to same.

Will any of the thousands of 'gods' suffice, or just some particular one?

The obvious default premise to work from is the presence of God.

Which one and why?

An alternative to the God concept, if there is one, should at least have it's own reasoning on Cosmic purpose that is relevant to the actuality of the human condition.

An alternative to the god concept is study of the real world "

Something like, this is too big for us and there exists a domain beyond our human capabilities, oops! That would be God, ...now I've gone circular in my efforts to help this muddle.

That humans do not understand all of nature is no indication that a proposed supernatural entity does understand or is responsible / involved.

What is the alternative, when working from the hypotheses of the Unknown
Atheism!
Not this time!

A rational alternative when confronting an unknown is to study the matter in attempt to gain understanding.

This was demonstrated when concerned people investigated the then unknown cause of disease, and learned that it was caused by microscopic organisms AND when the causes of storms, droughts, floods were identified as atmospheric processes.

An irrational alternative is 'Goddidit' based on ancient mythology and modern emotionalism. Some people seem to prefer the god tales.

[Thomas123]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Z:Atheism means: Without belief in gods " period " full stop.
T: A non belief!
Z:An alternative to the god concept is study of the real world
T: ?
Z:A rational alternative when confronting an unknown is to study the matter in attempt to gain understanding.
T: We do know the size of this thing, we just refuse to accept it as part of an internal cognitive resolution that approximates to a a blueprint for producing a relevant moral strategy for our existence.

Z:That humans do not understand all of nature is no indication that a proposed supernatural entity does understand or is responsible / involved

T: supernatural means beyond our understanding which effectively makes your argument negatively circular.

If we can't go up ,then maybe we can go down..No escape this way either. The study of the Higgs particle has Wiki seeking sanctuary in this...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Related to this, a belief generally exists among physicists that there is likely to be "new" physics beyond the Standard Model, and the Standard Model will at some point be extended or superseded

[Thomas123]

Let us collectively accept that we know diddly squat!
Some of our discoveries have misled us in very profound ways.

The feigned ignorance of scale implications is a dangerous precedent to set..I want to invade Brazil but can find no volunteers! They have possession of a huge portion of the Amazonian rain forest, a vital and irrepreplacable component of human life on earth. Their population is 200+ million.and growing. Outside of Sao Paulo ( Population 12 million), they are digging mass graves for coronavirus victims. Acres of graves without end. It would seem that they have invented the single use disposable human. It was bound to happen somewhere. Maybe the disposable human is old news?

The process of "undiscovery" is impossible in the modern arena.
Let's agree that we know enough to be getting on with and suspend our meddling.
That appears not to be an atheistic agenda either!

These are the lessons of Eden, of the sacrifice of Cain, of the learning of the Temple priests in the 1st Century, of the Bomb makers , the rocket launchers and the theoretical physicists of the future ! Put the lid back on this box with wisdom and self -realization. We need to turn to the rationale of self preservation through proper observance of our real situation. In this I agree with Zzyzx.