DCHindley

Just curious. It was nice to see someone cite it with approval. Up to now, I have been the only person here to advance CD seriously (that is, as it really is).

I once advanced it on Crosstalk2 (XTalk) but the academics came up with all sorts of objections that suggested that they found it troublesome. Funny thing is, although critics have been proposing for over a century that the realization that Jesus was resurrected was an afterthought of the disciples, the possibility that what prompted this reevaluation of Jesus' significance was a common psychological defense mechanism is somehow "highly speculative."

DCH

Diogenes the Cynic

It's hard to analyze their claims and formulate an explanation when we don't know exactly what their claims were. Craig just wants to accept the Gospel descriptions at face value, which is circular as hell (notwithstanding the fact that the Gospel descriptions contradict the crap out of each other).

KrisK10

No, I have never run into that article. Thanks for the info! The summary you provided seems a little heavy on the mental illness. Festinger even in the 1950's tried to point out that the people who formulated the radical rationalizations in his cult group study were completely normal. One even passed two psychological exams by court-appointed psychiatrists when some family members tried to take away his children due to his radical beliefs.

KrisK10

Not sure if this is a serious question. I'd say it is a form of hallucination, or a brief moment of misinterpretation, not an example of cognitive dissonance reduction.

Diogenes the Cynic

I agree with this. I don't think it's necessary to be "mentally ill" in the sense of having a persistent psychiatric disorder in order to have a psychotic experience, but I do think they're onto something with the basics of psychological crisis leading to psychotic break and a realignment of their psychological stars, so to speak.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, it's more than just misinterpreting something. It's the brain replacing something it can't emotionally accept with something else.

Have you ever seen the final episode of M*A*S*H, where Hawkeye sees a woman smother a baby on a bus in order to keep the baby's crying from giving away their position to a group of North Koreans? Hawkeye can't handle it emotionally (and it occurred partially at his own urging to keep the baby quiet), so his memory changes the baby into a chicken.

That's cognitive dissonance.

aspronot

More a case of pareidolia isn't it?

dog-on

Interesting article. I suppose if one takes, as a given, that certain events actually transpired, then the argument for CD becomes highly plausible.

Of course, the kicker becomes what is, in fact, taken as a given.

mountainman

Thanks for all the responses - I was just trying to get my head around the formalised concept of cog dis. But back to the article:

What does the Cog Dis Theory of Christian Origins have to say (if anything) to those who answer the bolded question above in the negative?

KrisK10

I am not 100% sure I understand your question. You seem to be asking what the cog dis theory has to say to those who do not find it plausible. The answer would be nothing.

Perhaps you are asking what a person is to do if they find all non-resurrection explanations for the rise of early Christian belief (including the cog dis explanation) implausible. In my opinion, one could still dismiss the historical reliability of the gospels and Jesus' resurrection based on other evidence, arguments, and experiences, and the assumption that some explanation for the rise of early Christian belief has simply not yet been discovered; however, I think that position is weaker. In other words, I actually think it would be a strong point in favor of the traditional view if it were true that there were no plausible non-resurrection explanations for the rise of early Christian belief.