Roger Pearse

Surely any of us might propose that the real explanation for something we disagree with might be that our opponents are deluded? A bit of a smelly sort of argument, tho, isn't it?

I agree entirely with your last point -- "offensive" is a code word for intimidation in our day. We need less of it.

What I was (evidently ineptly) trying to say is that I feel that an argument that consists of deciding your opponent is wrong and then proposing that they are wrong because they are mentally ill (or whatever weasel-words with practical difference get used) .... that is not a reasonable genre of argument, regardless of who is on which side. It's not an argument at all, in truth. It's a game with words. It's a form of ad hominem.

And we can all play. Hey, I could argue that atheism is wrong in just the same way. Those darn atheists -- it just shows that they can't cope with reality. They're inadequately socialised. Let's throw them in the mental hospitals until they learn better. Hang on, I'm supposed to call it "cognitive dissonance" that they can't understand that the Church is right. That makes it OK -- now we can burn them! You can see how it would play, if we had the sort of fascist-authoritarian church depicted every other week on the TV. Do we care for this kind of "argument"? I don't, myself.

Equally we could make just the same argument that Buddhism is an illness! Or Catholicism. Or liberalism. Or Nazism. Or this-ism. Or that-ism. Anything whatsoever. We can all play!

So what I was suggesting, as best I could, was that in fact this was not an "argument" as such. It was not a rational discussion of any kind. We could all play the game; but the truth or falsity of the propositions before us would remain untouched, while we all manipulated language to mark the other side as off their heads. That seems utterly futile to me. And, as I said, it is a form of argument that has been used very very recently for very very nasty purposes.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

KrisK10

Hello DCH,

The intent of my article was only to give a snapshot intro to the cog dis theory, not a full argument for it. I give the best argument I am capable of, with reference to the technical literature, in my book (or via: amazon.co.uk). The most relevant technical material I've found is in the following works:

1] When Prophecy Fails (1956)

2] Extending Psychological Frontiers, Selected Works of Leon Festinger (1989)

3] Cognitive Dissonance, Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology (1999)

And the only real rebuttals to applying the cog dis theory to Christian origins that I have seen are:

1] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), pg. 697-701.

2] Dr. Craig's podcast in response to my book that I refer to in my article.

Hope this helps some.

Kris

ApostateAbe

Roger Pearse, I think I may have discovered the source of the disagreement. You think that the author was referring to cognitive dissonance among modern Christians, but I understood the article to be referring to the cognitive dissonance among ancient Christians who first developed and believed the myth of the resurrection. Do you think that may explain it?

DCHindley

I sure did, and the paragraph you quoted,

"Cognitive dissonance reduction refers to the human tendency to rationalize a discontinuity between reality and one's current beliefs in such a way that current beliefs are modified or added to instead of being rejected."

has nothing to do with using the practice of psychiatry to change people's beliefs. All it states is that the school of social science that proposes a theory of Cognitive Dissonance has observed that folks who have their expectations dashed have a tendency to rationalize the discomfiture and change their beliefs to adapt.

This was never an issue. Although it is true, it is a red herring, and in my humble opinion an overreaction by you, Roger. The theory of CD was never about the truth value of Christianity, but like any theory it can be applied to religious beliefs. Does the possibility that Christian belief in a resurrection could be a rationalization in response to his unexpected death scare you so much that you equate it to Soviet authorities using mental institutions as a means to reprogram politically incorrect thought?

Birger Pearson has revived a proposal that dashed expectations about the establishment of a Kingdom of God on earth, in the aftermath of the Jewish war against Rome, caused some Jews to rationalize it in a radical manner, rejecting their ancestral beliefs and refashioning them into what we now call Sethian gnosticism.

It is a plausible explanation, and not without difficulties that need to be worked out. Why can't similar thinking be applied to the development of Christianity?

DCH

Yellum Notnef

But it's just as applicable to believers now as then. People didn't then and still do not now rise from the dead.

Roger Pearse

I skimmed it very quickly, so actually I did NOT pick up on the point that this was proposed about the ancient Christians. Thank you for resolving that.

Not sure that the argument works better when applied to ancient Christians either tho. "They came to believe because they were insane (or whatever form of words we use to mean much the same)." Hmm.

Must remember it when I write my history of atheism. Far easier than refuting atheist arguments! Some of them are *hard*!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

JonA

An actual resurrection is the least likely of any theory so far offered to explain the claims of resurrection.

There isn't even a reason to consider it.

What does that leave us with? Well, let's read the article and see...

Jon

KrisK10

Roger,

If it helps further, read the short note with an asterisk next to it that I put at the end of my article (just above the endnotes). I am only applying the cog dis theory to the rise of early Christian belief, not to modern Christians. I would like to add too that, based on my study, rationalizations due to cog dis are not a sign of mental illness; they are a normal human phenomenon, even in the extreme cases.

All the best,

Kris

Diogenes the Cynic

Are you familiar with Stark and Bainbridge's Psychopathology Model of Cult Formation? I think it dovetails very well with a cognitive dissonance hypothsis for Christian orgins, The basic summary (from the above linked pdf) is thus:
I did a paper on this in college (wherein I used this model to prove that the Nat Turner rebellion was a religious movement), and essentially it involves a psychological crisis in which an individual is faced with a reality that he finds psychologically unacceptable, has a psychotic break (which can often involve visions or voices), and reinterprets reality to suit his own needs. If that person is around other individuals suffering from the same social and psychological crises, it can become a movement.

I actually think this could have hypothetically happened with Christianity at three different points - the first with Jesus himself suffering a crisis after the arrest and execution of John the Baptist, thereby seeming to belie his apocalyptic message and the corresponding hopes of his followers (of which Jesus was one in my hypothesis). Jesus then undergoes an episode after which he comes to believe that he himself is the "Son of Man" who will bring about the apocalypse.

Then, after the crucifixion, we have disciples refusing to accept it, and imagining that they've seen Jesus promising to return.

Then, finally we have possibly Paul, who at least fits the psychotic part even though we don't know if he had undergone a preceeding psychological crisis or what it was.

I think of all these possibilities, one or more of the disciples having hallucinatory experiences is the most likely, since it is common for grieving people to believe that are seeing and talking to recently departed loved ones.

There is no evidence (and Paul does not claim) that the experiences of the Apostles involved seeing a physically resurrected Jesus (much less an empty tomb), and Paul does not distinguish between the nature of Jesus' appearances to the apostles and to himself, so I don't think there is any reason to believe (contrary to William Craig's well-worn spiel) that anyone who knew Jesus ever claimed to have seen him walk out of a cave, only that (at most) he "appeared" to them in some fashion. That is a claim which is not very remarkable in itself. My grandmother once told me that her dead sister came to her in her room and stood in front of her talking to her. My grandmother swore she was wide awake at the time. Those kinds of hallucinations are commonplace in conjunction with grief. The brain conjurs up the dead person for one last chat. It's a coping mechanism.

mountainman

Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? (or via: amazon.co.uk)[Paperback]


Nice one Kris. Thanks.

Enjoying reading the article(s). Minor question - is seeing a coil of rope as a snake an example of cog dis ?

Best wishes


Pete