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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 90 by Don McIntosh]

Until you present that evidence here, I’d assert to the contrary that there is a mountain of evidence for Christian theism and maybe a molehill or three for naturalism.

That's a bit like asking someone to move the Great Pyramid a few metres because it is blocking the view. There are millions of books and papers covering all aspects of scientific endeavour that have irrevocably led us to our conclusions about the nature of the universe we find ourselves in. On the other hand we have a few hundred pages of far fetched tales from antiquity that are purportedly the inspired words of some invisible deity with no independent support for any of them. Christianity is all just smoke and mirrors.

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 90 by Don McIntosh]

Until you present that evidence here, I’d assert to the contrary that there is a mountain of evidence for Christian theism and maybe a molehill or three for naturalism.

That's a bit like asking someone to move the Great Pyramid a few metres because it is blocking the view. There are millions of books and papers covering all aspects of scientific endeavour that have irrevocably led us to our conclusions about the nature of the universe we find ourselves in.

I take it that "us" there means atheists or naturalists (I certainly have not been led to atheistic or naturalistic metaphysical conclusions by any scientific methodologies or discoveries). In any event, I don't see how x amount of scientific data is supposed to translate to x amount of evidence for naturalism. If we were to formalize the argument from science to naturalism it might run like this:

1. Scientific data confirm naturalism.
2. There are copious amounts of scientific data.
3. There are copious amounts of data that confirm naturalism.

I don't know anyone who would dispute premise two, or dispute that the conclusion follows from the premises. The problem is with the first premise. Science confirms only how and by what specific principles or patterns certain aspects of the physical/natural world appear to operate, and theism, like naturalism, explicitly affirms the existence of the physical/natural world. And plenty of observers would counter that the total scientific evidence available actually favors theism over naturalism.

On the other hand we have a few hundred pages of far fetched tales from antiquity that are purportedly the inspired words of some invisible deity with no independent support for any of them. Christianity is all just smoke and mirrors.

Not really. Just as there are millions of books and papers supporting various scientific hypotheses, there are also millions of books and papers which independently support the rationality of biblical Christian theism. Those sources (not always written by religious people) confirm various aspects of Christianity with evidence from ancient historiography and early church history, cosmology, logic, epistemology, religious experience, miracle accounts and probability theory, fine-tuning and specified complexity in nature, prophecies in history, etc.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 92 by Don McIntosh]

Just as there are millions of books and papers supporting various scientific hypotheses, there are also millions of books and papers which independently support the rationality of biblical Christian theism. Those sources (not always written by religious people) confirm various aspects of Christianity with evidence from ancient historiography and early church history, cosmology, logic, epistemology, religious experience, miracle accounts and probability theory, fine-tuning and specified complexity in nature, prophecies in history, etc.

The consensus says otherwise. Hence the never ending plea to have faith.

[Zzyzx]

.

Not really. Just as there are millions of books and papers supporting various scientific hypotheses, there are also millions of books and papers which independently support the rationality of biblical Christian theism. Those sources (not always written by religious people) confirm various aspects of Christianity with evidence from ancient historiography and early church history, cosmology, logic, epistemology, religious experience, miracle accounts and probability theory, fine-tuning and specified complexity in nature, prophecies in history, etc.

Yup, all sorts of convoluted speculation, opinion, conjecture, etc

BUT no verifiable evidence that:
Long-dead bodies come back to life,
Earth stopped rotating ('Sun stood still' for a day),
Earth was flooded 'to the tops of mountains',
Donkeys and snakes converse in human language,
Gods confused languages to stop building of a tower that they feared would reach heaven,
Eating magic fruit conveyed knowledge (or another would convey immortality),
A star stopped over a birthplace, etc, etc.

Perhaps some of those tales can be overlooked as exuberant utterances of delusional believers. However, the key issue is whether or not Jesus came back to life, flew away, will come back as promised. Without that Christianity is based on fraud, fantasy, or fiction.

Step up and provide verifiable evidence -- not conjecture or philosophy

[Elijah John]

Nevertheless, one of the primary functions of apologetics is help Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience.

That seems like a straw-man characterization of apologetics. Please support your statement. Apologetic is directed outward, to the skeptic, not internally to the believer.

You may be thinking of indoctrination? When applied within the ranks, to the believer.

[Difflugia]

Nevertheless, one of the primary functions of apologetics is help Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience.

That seems like a straw-man characterization of apologetics. Please support your statement. Apologetic is directed outward, to the skeptic, not internally to the believer.

From William Lane Craig's On Guard, Chapter 1, "What is Apologetics?" p. 19

Second, apologetics can also help you to keep the faith in times of doubt and struggle. Emotions will carry you only so far, and then you’re going to need something more substantial. When I speak in churches around the country, I often meet parents who say something like, “If only you’d been here two or three years ago! Our son (or daughter) had questions about the faith which no one could answer, and now he’s far from the Lord.� In fact, there seem to be more and more reports of Christians abandoning their faith.

Same chapter, p. 21

As I travel, I also meet many people who have been brought back from the brink of abandoning their faith by reading an apologetics book or watching a debate. Recently I had the privilege of speaking at Princeton University on arguments for the existence of God, and after my lecture a young man approached me who wanted to talk. Obviously trying to hold back the tears, he told me how a couple of years earlier he had been struggling with doubts and was almost to the point of abandoning his faith. Someone then gave him a video of one of my debates. He said, “It saved me from losing my faith. I cannot thank you enough.�

[Goose]

Nevertheless, one of the primary functions of apologetics is help Christians suppress the cognitive dissonance they routinely experience.

That seems like a straw-man characterization of apologetics. Please support your statement. Apologetic is directed outward, to the skeptic, not internally to the believer.

From William Lane Craig's On Guard, Chapter 1, "What is Apologetics?" p. 19

Second, apologetics can also help you to keep the faith in times of doubt and struggle. Emotions will carry you only so far, and then you’re going to need something more substantial. When I speak in churches around the country, I often meet parents who say something like, “If only you’d been here two or three years ago! Our son (or daughter) had questions about the faith which no one could answer, and now he’s far from the Lord.� In fact, there seem to be more and more reports of Christians abandoning their faith.

Same chapter, p. 21

As I travel, I also meet many people who have been brought back from the brink of abandoning their faith by reading an apologetics book or watching a debate. Recently I had the privilege of speaking at Princeton University on arguments for the existence of God, and after my lecture a young man approached me who wanted to talk. Obviously trying to hold back the tears, he told me how a couple of years earlier he had been struggling with doubts and was almost to the point of abandoning his faith. Someone then gave him a video of one of my debates. He said, “It saved me from losing my faith. I cannot thank you enough.�

In fairness, in his book On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision Craig sees apologetics as important for three reasons. 1. Shaping culture (pages 15-18) 2. Strengthening believers (pages 18-22)and 3. Winning unbelievers (pages 22-24).

In that same first chapter What is Apologetics Craig summarizes that third reason, Winning unbelievers, by saying...

“When apologetics is persuasively presented and sensitively combined with a gospel presentation and a personal testimony, the Spirit of God is pleased to use it to bring people to himself� - pg 24.

In his online work Craig has elaborated on the first chapter of On Guard.

What is apologetics? Very simply, apologetics is that branch of Christian theology which is devoted to providing a rational justification for Christianity’s truth claims. It is that branch of Christian theology that tries to give a rational justification of Christianity’s truth claims. What that implies is that apologetics is first and foremost a theoretical discipline though it has a practical application. Apologetics is not training in evangelism or training in debating or training in persuasive speaking. All of those apply apologetics but apologetics itself is a theoretical discipline which studies the arguments and the evidence for the truth of the Christian faith.[1] So our focus during this weekend together is not going to be on matters of practical evangelism or persuasive speaking or argumentation and debate. It is going to be on the content of the rational justification for Christianity’s truth claims: arguments and evidence for the existence of God and his self-revelation in Jesus Christ.

In the opening chapter of On Guard, I discuss the value of apologetics and so I am not going to say anything about that this evening. I want to encourage you to read the opening chapter of the book. There I explain that apologetics is very useful, and I think in fact vital, in our culture today to shaping culture, strengthening individual believers, and winning unbelievers to Christ. In this threefold fashion, I think it is critical that all lay people, at least in the Western world today, be trained in the art of apologetics.

[Don McIntosh]

.

Not really. Just as there are millions of books and papers supporting various scientific hypotheses, there are also millions of books and papers which independently support the rationality of biblical Christian theism. Those sources (not always written by religious people) confirm various aspects of Christianity with evidence from ancient historiography and early church history, cosmology, logic, epistemology, religious experience, miracle accounts and probability theory, fine-tuning and specified complexity in nature, prophecies in history, etc.

Yup, all sorts of convoluted speculation, opinion, conjecture, etc

BUT no verifiable evidence

Interesting. Earlier you were assuring me that you are open to evidence for Christianity, but now you're assuring me that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity in millions of papers and books supporting the truth of Christianity. Given the rather safe bet that you have not actually read each of the aforementioned millions of books and papers, then it appears you have once again poisoned the well and fallaciously pronounced on behalf of all of us that there is no evidence for the Christian faith, despite not having stopped to actually examine it (let alone seriously consider it).

Long-dead bodies come back to life,
Earth stopped rotating ('Sun stood still' for a day),
Earth was flooded 'to the tops of mountains',
Donkeys and snakes converse in human language,
Gods confused languages to stop building of a tower that they feared would reach heaven,
Eating magic fruit conveyed knowledge (or another would convey immortality),
A star stopped over a birthplace, etc, etc.

Perhaps some of those tales can be overlooked as exuberant utterances of delusional believers.

The key to the above lines of rhetoric appears to be the question-begging phrase "delusional believers." I happily concede that if believers are deluded about the miracles described above, then those miracles almost certainly did not happen. If believers have good reason to believe that the God described in Scripture exists, however, then they also have good reason to believe that God performed the various miracles ascribed to him in Scripture (an ability to perform miracles is one of the great benefits of being omnipotent, after all) – in which case they would not be delusional.

However, the key issue is whether or not Jesus came back to life, flew away, will come back as promised. Without that Christianity is based on fraud, fantasy, or fiction.

Step up and provide verifiable evidence -- not conjecture or philosophy

Thanks for the invite, but I provided a good deal of evidence already. At the same time you have stated clearly in various places that there is no verifiable evidence for Christianity (as if you really had the authority to decide that for the rest of us, lol) – not even in countless books and papers which a single human could not possibly have read in a single lifetime – which signals a disconfirmation bias too deeply entrenched for me or anyone else to overcome.

Besides, I think it's your turn at the plate. So if you would, please step up and provide verifiable evidence for the following claims:

1. Publicly accessible and relevant facts that are made by competent scholars in peer-reviewed publications and that appear to support the truth of Christianity do not qualify as evidence.
2. The universe originated by strictly natural processes.
3. Life on earth originated by strictly natural processes.
4. Having originated by strictly natural processes, all of life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, again by strictly natural processes.
5. Any claim not supported by verifiable evidence is not worthy of belief.

Before you begin, you should know that I fully intend to adopt your own polemical method against you. In other words, if I don't personally admit that whatever you might happen to present is convincing evidence, but instead I find some way to argue against it, or find another theory compatible with it, then I will turn around and authoritatively pronounce that it's simply not evidence at all – not for you, or me, or anyone else. Sound fair?

Of course it does. Start whenever you're ready.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 98 by Don McIntosh]

I’m not Zzyzx, but I expect his response to this from you:

Those sources (not always written by religious people) confirm various aspects of Christianity with evidence from ancient historiography and early church history, cosmology, logic, epistemology, religious experience, miracle accounts and probability theory, fine-tuning and specified complexity in nature, prophecies in history, etc.

... is more likely meant that those sources have been examined by non-theists, many times over, and the conclusions are the same: either faulty logic (e.g. ‘argument from design’), impossible to verify (personal experience), disputed even amongst Biblical scholars themselves (church history, miracle accounts), or flat-out contradictory to known observations (cosmology). The fact that he, personally, hasn’t examined and refuted every single claim shouldn’t invalidate such refutations, nor necessitate a need for him to attempt so.

Surely you can agree that “you haven’t read every book on the subject, therefore you can’t dismiss my argument� isn’t a very useful line for debate here?

If you’re comfortable with the amount and comparative strength of evidence you’ve already provided, better to just ‘rest your case’, rather than to demand an opponent make a case for a totally different subject (which should really go in another thread).

[Zzyzx]

.

Not really. Just as there are millions of books and papers supporting various scientific hypotheses, there are also millions of books and papers which independently support the rationality of biblical Christian theism. Those sources (not always written by religious people) confirm various aspects of Christianity with evidence from ancient historiography and early church history, cosmology, logic, epistemology, religious experience, miracle accounts and probability theory, fine-tuning and specified complexity in nature, prophecies in history, etc.

Yup, all sorts of convoluted speculation, opinion, conjecture, etc

BUT no verifiable evidence

Interesting. Earlier you were assuring me that you are open to evidence for Christianity,

Correction: I am open to VERIFIABLE evidence – not 'Take my word for it, or his, or this book'.

I trust that readers would be interested too. Some of them (2230 views of this thread so far) might be weighing the merits of what is said by Apologists vs. what is said by Non-Theists. Show them evidence that they can check for themselves for truth and accuracy.

but now you're assuring me that there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity in millions of papers and books supporting the truth of Christianity.

There are many books about unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies too. Does that provide verifiable evidence they are anything more than imaginary?

Present the evidence – not just baloney and rabbit trails. Show readers that there is veriable evidence to support biblical tales and claims. I provided a list (mentioned below) that might be a good starting point.

Given the rather safe bet that you have not actually read each of the aforementioned millions of books and papers, then it appears you have once again poisoned the well and fallaciously pronounced on behalf of all of us that there is no evidence for the Christian faith, despite not having stopped to actually examine it (let alone seriously consider it).

Have I said 'there is no evidence for the Christian faith'? Provide verbatim quote with URL. Try to debate against what I actually say, not what you make up in your head.

Notice that I said 'no verifiable evidence' has been provided. I am not debating 'millions of papers and books' and they are not here to debate. You are. Have at it.

Long-dead bodies come back to life,
Earth stopped rotating ('Sun stood still' for a day),
Earth was flooded 'to the tops of mountains',
Donkeys and snakes converse in human language,
Gods confused languages to stop building of a tower that they feared would reach heaven,
Eating magic fruit conveyed knowledge (or another would convey immortality),
A star stopped over a birthplace, etc, etc.

Perhaps some of those tales can be overlooked as exuberant utterances of delusional believers.

The key to the above lines of rhetoric appears to be the question-begging phrase "delusional believers."

Notice that those 'lines of rhetoric' are taken from the Bible.

Can the possibility / likelihood they are the product of “exuberant utterances of delusional believers� be eliminated?

It is understandable that Apologists are unable to show verifiable evidence that any such things actually occurred – ducking and weaving when challenged.

I happily concede that if believers are deluded about the miracles described above, then those miracles almost certainly did not happen. If believers have good reason to believe that the God described in Scripture exists, however, then they also have good reason to believe that God performed the various miracles ascribed to him in Scripture

The key word is IF.

Is the 'good reason to believe' anything more substantial than unverified ancient tales / folklore / mythology? Do unverifiable books claiming knowledge of 'gods' assure that 'gods' are as described? If so, which gods and which tales are true (and which are false) and how can we know the difference?

(an ability to perform miracles is one of the great benefits of being omnipotent, after all) – in which case they would not be delusional.

IF a giant pink unicorn is omnipotent, then all things are possible.

IF a giant invisible, undetectable, 'god' is omnipotent, then all things are possible. How can anyone interested determine if such a 'god' exists? Do they read ancient texts? Which ones and why? Do they seek psychotic experience? Do they listen to sermons?

Thanks for the invite, but I provided a good deal of evidence already.

Kindly summarize for readers the evidence that you have provided which they can verify for themselves as being truthful and accurate – which does not require taking the unverified word of someone or some book – which shows that Christianity and its 'God' are more than products of human imagination.

At the same time you have stated clearly in various places that there is no verifiable evidence for Christianity (as if you really had the authority to decide that for the rest of us, lol) – not even in countless books and papers which a single human could not possibly have read in a single lifetime – which signals a disconfirmation bias too deeply entrenched for me or anyone else to overcome.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong – set forth verifiable evidence. Don't be shy.

Besides, I think it's your turn at the plate.

Nice dodge – perhaps indicating that you have no verifiable evidence to offer?

So if you would, please step up and provide verifiable evidence for the following claims:

1. Publicly accessible and relevant facts that are made by competent scholars in peer-reviewed publications and that appear to support the truth of Christianity do not qualify as evidence.
2. The universe originated by strictly natural processes.
3. Life on earth originated by strictly natural processes.
4. Having originated by strictly natural processes, all of life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, again by strictly natural processes.
5. Any claim not supported by verifiable evidence is not worthy of belief.

Which of those claims / statements have I made?

NONE.

I am not expected to defend statements provided by others (sometimes known as straw-men).

Read my very clear statement in signature that appears on each post: “ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence�

Before you begin, you should know that I fully intend to adopt your own polemical method against you.

Help yourself. My statement is immediately above. Have at it.

In other words, if I don't personally admit that whatever you might happen to present is convincing evidence, but instead I find some way to argue against it, or find another theory compatible with it, then I will turn around and authoritatively pronounce that it's simply not evidence at all – not for you, or me, or anyone else. Sound fair?

Sounds like something said by a novice at debate.

Of course it does. Start whenever you're ready.

ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence