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]

Tcg: Why don't you get the ball rolling by explaining what implications you think "new photographic evidence of a limitless cosmos" have on the belief or lack of belief in god/gods. Of course if you think this only applies to one select God, you can also explain why you think we can ignore all the other gods humans have developed belief in.

Rest assured that this request is no feigned curiosity. I am genuinely interested in why you think "new photographic evidence of a limitless cosmos" relates in any way to the discussion of god/gods or God if you have a favorite in mind.

?

Now that's what I call, going out on a speculative limb!

ps: Tcg is well aware that I am referring to a general God concept that is within all theism. Atheistic thought, ...thought without the God concept.

[Tcg]

Tcg: Why don't you get the ball rolling by explaining what implications you think "new photographic evidence of a limitless cosmos" have on the belief or lack of belief in god/gods. Of course if you think this only applies to one select God, you can also explain why you think we can ignore all the other gods humans have developed belief in.

Rest assured that this request is no feigned curiosity. I am genuinely interested in why you think "new photographic evidence of a limitless cosmos" relates in any way to the discussion of god/gods or God if you have a favorite in mind.

?

Now that's what I call, going out on a speculative limb!

ps: Tcg is well aware that I am referring to a general God concept that is within all theism.

I'm aware of that now. Given that you started another thread pushing Yahweh as a model God, I thought that was your God of choice.

Of course none of this addresses my suggestion.


Tcg

[Thomas123]

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.

My 1st submission on this thread! Tcg

Post13 Thomas123
Not specifically Christianity, unless it becomes relevant by definition of the highlighted part,ie 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.

Post 16
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......."

This seems like forever now, posts18,20,21,24, etc
Maybe it's your turn to say something?

[Tcg]

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.

My 1st submission on this thread! Tcg

Post13 Thomas123
Not specifically Christianity, unless it becomes relevant by definition of the highlighted part,ie 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.

Post 16
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......."

This seems like forever now, posts18,20,21,24, etc
Maybe it's your turn to say something?

I guess that moved the ball a couple inches. We know that for this discussion anyway you've kicked poor ole Yahweh to the curb. What we don't know is why you think this "God concept" (not any specific god/gods and certainly not Yahweh) has anything to do with "new photographic evidence of a limitless cosmos."


Tcg

[Tcg]

Atheistic thought, ...thought without the God concept.

There is no single atheistic thought. All atheists are individuals and have unique thoughts in the same way that all theists are individuals and have unique thoughts. We wouldn't expect a panentheist and an Hasidic Jew to share a single "theistic thought."

Having said that, some atheists quite obviously consider the numerous god/gods concepts that have been presented. They simply aren't convinced that there are any real god/gods behind the numerous god/gods concepts humans have imagined.


Tcg

[Thomas123]

[Replying to post 65 by Tcg]

Tcg: "There is no single atheistic thought. All atheists are individuals and have unique thoughts in the same way that all theists are individuals and have unique thoughts."

No!

Theists share the God concept, what do atheists share?
If nothing ,then call them by their first name ,George,Michael,Alex, Monica, Louise,,.....

Tcg:"There is no single atheistic thought"

Thomas123: That explains why I could not find it!

[Zzyzx]

.

Theists share the God concept,

That casts the net rather widely to include worshipers of all the thousands of proposed 'gods', many of which seem mutually exclusive.
https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_bi ... ll_of_them

what do atheists share?

Absence of belief in gods

If nothing ,then call them by their first name ,George,Michael,Alex, Monica, Louise,,.....

Exactly. However, here in debate most god believers seem incapable of understanding that lacking a belief in fairies (or gods) does not define a person or assign them to group-think.

Most stumble badly attempting to deal with my identification as Non-Theist (as though I must be a 'god denier' or 'god hater)' when reading my signature should dispel that notion for any reasonably literate person.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 65 by Tcg]

Tcg: "There is no single atheistic thought. All atheists are individuals and have unique thoughts in the same way that all theists are individuals and have unique thoughts."

No!

Theists share the God concept,

There is no single "God concept" as the existence of both polytheists and pantheists demonstrates.

… what do atheists share?

Coffee on occasion.

Tcg:"There is no single atheistic thought"

Thomas123: That explains why I could not find it!

It certainly does.


Tcg

[Don McIntosh]

.

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

Kindly read my previous posts in this thread explaining in some detail how in many cases atheism appears to involve cognitive dissonance, and then carefully state your objections.

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

Noted. Look, I'm not suggesting that subjective factors have played no part in public deconversion stories. But when push comes to shove, the ultimate justification for atheism (at least in the deconversion stories I've read on these boards) is almost always something much more laudable: a purely objective search for evidence and a rational evaluation of the facts.

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.

Well, right. I think it's safe to say that there is not verifiable evidence sufficient to confirm fanciful tales; otherwise they would not be fanciful tales. The question remains whether the miracles and resurrection of Jesus (who was certainly visible and detectable), for example, can be written off as fanciful tales when all the relevant facts are taken into account.

To put it another way: it may be that the common assertion that "there is no verifiable evidence" for God or for the Christian faith is simply false. I for one can find no verifiable evidence for the assertion itself, and yet on the kind of evidentialist epistemology so popular among atheists, that would mean that the assertion itself is unjustified.

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.

That's why I was careful to say "professing" atheist. Do you seriously think that every self-proclaimed atheist is genuinely without any belief in any gods? Think of it like this: you would agree with me that there are countless hypocrites who profess religious faith but act and believe otherwise, right? I am merely calling attention to the real possibility that there are also atheist hypocrites – people who claim to have no belief in God but in reality act and believe otherwise.

Speculation noted.

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

It's not that I know so much about atheists, but that I've learned a thing or two about human beings and probability generally. Based on that learning experience I would say again that the chances of all theist-to-atheist deconversions being the result of a completely honest, objective and rational thought process are highly remote.

Even in my own life, I remember being so frustrated, disappointed – and yes, angry – over my Christian experience some years ago that I cursed at God violently and vowed (rashly, it turns out) that I would never pray or speak of him again. And I thought seriously about coming onto boards like this one and arguing against Christianity just to spite him (though I believed he existed all the while). Given that there are around three billion professing Christians and over a billion professing atheists/secularists/nones in the world, almost undoubtedly there are others who have had similar experiences and yet followed through where I did not.

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

I disagree. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker and many others have made a good living specifically by explaining why they are without belief in gods and encouraging others to join them. Beyond strictly monetary profit, there is also the possibility of doubters finding acceptance and encouragement in the nontheistic community where their skepticism was frowned upon or even condemned in the church. And in many circles these days atheists are thought to be more intelligent and courageous than their religious counterparts; and who doesn't want to be considered intelligent and courageous? I'm sure there are other reasons besides.

[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

Kindly read my previous posts in this thread explaining in some detail how in many cases atheism appears to involve cognitive dissonance, and then carefully state your objections.

Nice dodge. Again, 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

Noted. Look, I'm not suggesting that subjective factors have played no part in public deconversion stories. But when push comes to shove, the ultimate justification for atheism (at least in the deconversion stories I've read on these boards) is almost always something much more laudable: a purely objective search for evidence and a rational evaluation of the facts.

Is there just a wee chance of confirmation bias in your evaluations?

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.

Well, right. I think it's safe to say that there is not verifiable evidence sufficient to confirm fanciful tales; otherwise they would not be fanciful tales.

Agreed. Where does that leave tales about gods?

The question remains whether the miracles and resurrection of Jesus (who was certainly visible and detectable),

There seems to be general agreement that the Jesus character of Gospel tales likely existed as a wandering Jewish preacher.

for example, can be written off as fanciful tales when all the relevant facts are taken into account.

What verifiable evidence can you cite to indicate that miracles and resurrection are more than fanciful tales – something more than the tales themselves or claims that many believed?

To put it another way: it may be that the common assertion that "there is no verifiable evidence" for God or for the Christian faith is simply false.

The obvious reply is to provide verifiable evidence.

Do you realize that you cannot provide verifiable evidence?

Simply excusing the lack by saying it happened a long time ago is a cop-out. Offering the tales themselves as evidence for themselves is even worse (but is a common apologetic).

I for one can find no verifiable evidence for the assertion itself, and yet on the kind of evidentialist epistemology so popular among atheists, that would mean that the assertion itself is unjustified.

Here is your chance to prove those Atheists wrong. Lay out the verifiable evidence for readers to consider (1272 views of this thread so far). Show those viewers the evidence that proves the Atheists wrong.

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.

That's why I was careful to say "professing" atheist. Do you seriously think that every self-proclaimed atheist is genuinely without any belief in any gods?

I do not pretend to know the beliefs of others. Do you?

Think of it like this: you would agree with me that there are countless hypocrites who profess religious faith but act and believe otherwise, right?

I will agree that outward signs may indicate a disconnect between words and deeds

I am merely calling attention to the real possibility that there are also atheist hypocrites – people who claim to have no belief in God but in reality act and believe otherwise.

So what?

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

It's not that I know so much about atheists, but that I've learned a thing or two about human beings and probability generally.

Some of your statements seem to indicate or claim a great deal of knowledge about what Atheists think.

Based on that learning experience I would say again that the chances of all theist-to-atheist deconversions being the result of a completely honest, objective and rational thought process are highly remote.

Opinion noted. Do you find no evidence of 'honest, objective, rational thought' in www.clergyproject.org and www.exchristian.net?

Even in my own life, I remember being so frustrated, disappointed – and yes, angry – over my Christian experience some years ago that I cursed at God violently and vowed (rashly, it turns out) that I would never pray or speak of him again.

That you may have been rash or irrational does not say anything about anyone else.

And I thought seriously about coming onto boards like this one and arguing against Christianity just to spite him (though I believed he existed all the while).

Many seem to have difficulty overcoming childhood and lifetime indoctrination.

Some are angry with god-pushers for feeding them baloney for years or decades.

Given that there are around three billion professing Christians and over a billion professing atheists/secularists/nones in the world, almost undoubtedly there are others who have had similar experiences and yet followed through where I did not.

Agreed. The point being . . . ?

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

I disagree. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker and many others have made a good living specifically by explaining why they are without belief in gods and encouraging others to join them.

Read very carefully what I said.

Profiting from one's writing is not the same as 'being without belief in gods'.

If a prominent Christian architect is paid handsomely for designing a cathedral, can the profit attributable to being Christian or to being an architect?

Beyond strictly monetary profit, there is also the possibility of doubters finding acceptance and encouragement in the nontheistic community where their skepticism was frowned upon or even condemned in the church.

Had I meant non-monetary gains, I would have used the word “benefits�

And in many circles these days atheists are thought to be more intelligent and courageous than their religious counterparts; and who doesn't want to be considered intelligent and courageous?

I, for one, definitely do NOT want special consideration of any kind by virtue of being Non-Theistic (or being clumped with any group). Perhaps others are differently motivated.