Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science: Part 5.5 of 6
How Beliefs Resist Change
The Jesuits have a saying sometimes attributed to Francis Xavier, "Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man." The Jesuits were a tad optimistic, but ample research on identity formation shows that religious, cultural, and political identity become established by early adulthood and rarely change thereafter except in response to crisis. In fact, even in the face of crisis, core beliefs about who we are and why we are here, can be remarkably resilient.
This is due in part to the fact that individual beliefs do not exist in isolation. Rather, each exists as part of a whole network of other beliefs, memories, and attitudes. The more central or important any given belief, the more it is entangled with the rest of our world view. And the more it is tied into the tangle, the harder it is to change. Because religious views are so central, they are particularly resistant to change.
To make things even more complicated, each religion has what can be called an immune system. Because traditional Christianity is centered on orthodoxy, meaning right belief, the immune system consists of a set of teachings that guard against other beliefs or loss of belief. Christianity's immune system includes the following teachings:
· Doubt is a sign of weakness or temptation by Satan, the father of lies.
· False teachers (those whose theology differs) should be cast out.
· Believers should not be unequally yoked (partnered) with nonbelievers.
· Nonbelievers have no basis for morality, so their motives are suspect.
· If Christians act badly, the flaw is in the persons, not the religion.
Given that core beliefs are naturally resilient and given the power of messages such as these, it will come as no surprise that people go to extreme lengths psychologically to defend religious dogmas.
Cognitive dissonance theory, helps us to understand what happens when people are confronted with contradictory beliefs. If, for example, I believe the world is fair (called a Just World Hypothesis), but a kind, generous neighbor gets assaulted and hurt, I am faced with a contradiction. I can revise my view of the world (it isn't so fair), the neighbor (she isn't so good), or the harm done (it wasn't so bad). Surprisingly often, people resolve such contradictions in favor of a treasured belief rather than in favor of the evidence -- even if this requires blaming victims for their own suffering or coming up with elaborate justifications for catastrophes. When the catastrophe is the apparent failure of a prophecy or the moral failure of a religious leader, such justifications can be spectacular.
In Doubting Jesus Resurrection, Kris Komarnitsky offers an nice overview of cognitive dissonance concepts followed by a series of jaw dropping stories from history - each showing the extreme contradictions believers can accommodate. Small apocalyptic cults suffer the devastating failure of end-of-the-world prophecies and yet each, faced with crushing disappointment, finds some interpretation that leaves the cult belief system intact. In this light, Komarnitsky examines the pressures faced by Jesus followers when his triumphal entry into Jerusalem was followed by torture and death.
A small close-knit cult fending adjusting to the disappointment of another ordinary sunrise is just an extraordinary example of ordinary - the human tendency toward confirmatory thinking. All of us are biased to seek information that fits what we already believe. Confirmatory evidence jumps out at us, and we find it emotionally appealing. It's like our minds set up filters - with contradictory evidence stuck in gray tones on the outside and the confirmatory evidence flowing through in bright and shining color.
Unfortunately, confirmatory thinking causes all kinds of problems. Corporate leaders fall into group think about the best competitive strategy. Jurors assume an accused criminal is guilty. Politicians fabricate reasons for war -- sure that the real evidence must be there somewhere. Confirmation bias is so built into human thinking that the whole scientific endeavor is structured essentially to get around it. The scientific method has been called, "What we know about how not to fool ourselves." And yet, as we know, even scientists end up embarrassing themselves from time to time by getting a little to eager to confirm their pet theories and forgetting how easy it is to fall prey to our own filters.
Even outside our personal information filters is a set of ring defenses: our communities. Who forwards you email? What magazines do you subscribe to? What shows do you watch? Because confirmation is so satisfying and contradiction is so uncomfortable, we surround ourselves with friends and colleagues and coreligionists who think like us. Often, we join groups that do the filtering for us: Democrats for America, The Nature Conservancy, Assemblies of God, The National Rifle Association. These groups provide a steady flow of information confirming and elaborating what we think we know--and ensuring that a lot of contradictory information never makes it anywhere near our brains. They let us short-cut. Instead of weigh the quality of arguments and evidence - we look at the source and either raise or lower a draw bridge.
In an even more impervious form of this, we form a group identity: I'm a Catholic. I'm a Republican. I'm an American. I'm a Woman. I'm Hispanic. I'm a Calvinist. Each of these identities creates what I call a tribal information boundary (TIB). TIB's are remarkable efficiency devices, allowing us to weave coherent story lines about the world around us. But for someone seeking to understand complicated realities, they can be tremendously costly.
When we actually allow ourselves to bump up against the limitations of our world view, when we acknowledge we've hit a wall and then find a way over or around it--that is when growth is most likely to occur. In the 1998 comedy, The Truman Show, the protagonist, played by Jim Carrey, pushes past an information boundary and realizes he is living in the artificial world of a television set. From childhood, Truman has accepted the explanations and roles offered him. But he is confronted with small discrepancies, and one day he ignores his own fears and barriers that his community has erected, and punches through to the world outside. The movie's message to us all: It is possible.
Follow Valerie Tarico on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ValerieTarico
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I just wanted to give a shoutout to:
Gordon Marino
Professor of Philosophy at St. Olaf College
For the introduction to cognitive dissonance theory on Huffington post back in July of 2006.
http://www
I like that his university is named after a saint :-)
Yes... Saints are impressive human beings, esecially knowing now that they had no help from a mythic G-d.
Valerie, thank you for this post and entire series.
I think you may have shed some intriguing light on Huckabee's unconscionable decision in this scandal: http://en.
Huck was enamoured with the idea of securing justice for a criminal who convinced Huck he was an doe-eyed innocent born again. How else do you explain ignoring the direct pleas of multiple victims?
This was an interesting post.
Travis and Aronson wrote an excellent book on cognitive dissonance, Mistakes were Made, but Not by Me.
I have a short review of it, explaining how it might work with franchise due diligence here:
http://www
Be great if this helped people avoid mistakes.
The immune system of Christianity accurately describes fundamentalist Christianity; but it's presented as a description of Christianity per se, despite its diversity and the fact that fundamentalists are in a clear minority. They simply get most of the attention because they clamor the loudest and reach the deepest into their wallets. Sorry, but there appears to be some confirmatory thinking with that description, along with some tribal affiliation with its emphasis on duality. ; )
along with some tribal affiliation with its emphasis on duality . . .I'm afraid I created a word salad in trying to move quickly along. I'm referring to the duality I discern in aetheism, which frames Christianity as having opposing political and cultural values to aetheism.
I think there are as many shades and flavors of atheism as their are Christian sects--well maybe not quite as many. For instance to me the Old Testament God is a disgusting fictional character but Jesus probably did exist and is worthy of emulation as revealed by the parables and the Sermon on the Mount. I do think there is a non anthropomorphic numinous (sacred) impulse in nature that nature itself creates. So I guess I am an atheistic Jesusian or maybe even a pantheist.
I recently read a book review where someone called this: Christian Atheism-- where the teachings of Jesus are honored, but God is rejected.
I agree with your point that the immune system description is that of fundamentalist Christianity.
I know this guy who took a job in another state. His wife did not move with him. Now he's back after two and a half years.
His mother-in-law runs a "church" in her home. It's a few dozen people, maybe six families. She is not the preacher, though. She's the prophet.
He gained some separation, sees it for what it is, and refuses to attend. The Immune System Teachings have definitely kicked in. He is being demonized and I don't see how this can end well.
If he is indeed being demonized - and I am afraid that's perfectly possible - then it cannot end well.
Except for him maybe, if he gets out of that nonsense.
I asked him some very specific questions at lunch one day.
He's got a choice here,
Who ever's gonna run - Run Run Run!
Who ever's gonna stay -Stay Stay Stay!
(borrowed from Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks)
The prophet is an old lady. I think he wants to try and wait her out, but it doesn't sound to me as if that will help. Prophets always seem to turn their transmitters over to an heir when they die.
Minimal Sin Tax said: "A: Christians are immoral because their Christian beliefs require immoral conduct of them (like hate and intolerance)"
Is this what your husband thinks?
Is this what you believe that I think about xians?
Are hate and intolerance not immoral?
Okay. Good point. my husband doesn't think I am full of hate and intolerance. I would say that my husband (who is from rural Greece and therefore has been surrounded by peasants until he went to Athens to attend university) thinks that in general Christians are superstitious or stupid because they leave money at church for the poor or to pay for candles that they light and he is convinced that the money goes into the pockets of the priests. And I think I would agree with him in some cases that I have encountered around his village--both for the people being superstitious and the priests pocketing the money. My husband just laughs when I come back from church and asks if it is okay -- did I get the party line straight for the week...
And I don't think you believe that of all Christians. You would like Christians to not interfere in your life and I think that is quite fair of you. Even I think it is true of some Christians in fact-- that they are hateful and intolerant and have that confused with beliefs in God.
I do think that hate and intolerance are immoral. Immune systems are not fooled all of the time.
it's interesting how you bring up the money that Christians leave at church. Is this some kind of subconscious response to the 'minimalist sin tax'?
I bring it up because it reminds me of the down-to-earth reasons I had when I was about to become atheist for seriously questioning the practice of what's happening in (catholic) church. But of course these collections of money are only a symbolic fraction, in terms of real wages, of what drove a wedge between the two parts of the non-orthodox, western part of christianity. It is part of the birth rites of Lutherian reformation.
I think I like your hubby. When is he going to join the fun? I need reinforcements when the xians are verbally attacking me on HP.
Excellent post!
Roy Mankovitz. Director
http://www
Excellent post, I've been trying to get this point through to Deepak Chopra for years now.
Eloquently expressed Valerie (the Sage) Tarico, well done indeed.
1. sage - a mentor in spiritual and philosophical topics who is renowned for profound wisdom
Deepak is to deeply (in)vested in his ideas to back out now...lol.
Hey HS, glad to see thst you're in good humor and doing well. Your point is understoodand eventhough you are correct, I'm not quite as cynical when it comes to Deepak.
Deepak has alot of *Jesuit * in him to overcome.
Dear Valerie,
Ya really tickled me with the part 5.5 of 6, I did not want the serirs to end, good on ya. Agape, dap
Excellent post, smart points. I look forward to reading more of your work.
It seems to me atheism has a similar immune system:
C:Doubt is a sign of weakness or temptation by Satan, the father of lies.
A: Doubt is a sign of strength.
C:False teachers (those whose theology differs) should be cast out.
A: False teachers (those who teach theology) should be cast out.·
C: Believers should not be unequally yoked (partnered) with nonbelievers. (unequally yoked? I think people just recognize this as "differently yoked."
A: My atheist husband threatened to divorce me when I became Greek Orthodox. He was incredibly angry for quite a while. But finally he realized he could use it to his advantage: Honey, is it really Christian to argue with me like this?
C: I don't think this assertion is part of the Christian immune system for non-Protestants: Nonbelievers have no basis for morality, so their motives are suspect. (Everyone is made in the image of God, so why wouldn't they all have the same capacity and instinct for morality)
A: Christians are immoral because their Christian beliefs require immoral conduct of them (like hate and intolerance)
C:· If Christians act badly, the flaw is in the persons, not the religion.
A: If an atheist acts badly, it is not because of his/her atheism, but instead some other reason caused it.
Yeah, I trust the next series of articles is going to be "Judaism in the light of cognitive science" or "Islam" or "Brahmanism"
Oh, I forgot, there's no tribal cohesive or identitarian element in Judaism or Brahmanism (wink wink, nod nod).
It's very interesting that you chose to convert to Greek Orthodox Christianity. Maybe what upset your husband so much is that he thought the real Greek Orthodoxy was the time of the greek philosophers in Athens, not Christianity?
So that it would all be about words? As in 'Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?'
:-)
None of my business, really.
It could certainly be said that Atheists who believe in the A's no. 4 and 5 really have a pseudo-religious immune system. But that's a caricature of Atheism.
Whether or not doubt is a strength or a weakness is unlikely to have a universally valid answer. Seems quite impossible to me. It's very strongly dependent on the cognitive and utilitarian landscape the individual finds itself in. It's not always wise to bang your head against the wall. But sometimes it's the only way out. No doubt about it.
My husband is from Greece so he grew up as Greek Orthodox, but under the Military Junta supported by Nixon and Agnew. In Greece there is unfortunately very little separation of church and state and the church did virtually nothing to protect the people against the Junta. They had no courage and I am sure there were many Orthodox people who saw the junta as their only protection against communism who they believed wanted to destroy them because they believed in Christianity. There had been a bloody civil war before the junta emerged, so the problem was very complicated. My husband thought it meant I was right wing if I embraced Greek Orthodoxy. He now sees it isn't necessarily so.
That whole idea of Orthodoxy being all about words is very interesting. It was an idea of the Stoics: the logos.
Jesus is said to be the logos incarnate (and I might add that the word logical does come from logos). And the Gospel of John starts out: "in the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God."
Your personal experiences do not allow you to examine atheism. Remove your bias before thinking the two equate.
That would be point #2...
I would not think your personal experiences of Christianity would preclude you from being able to reflect about it.
I should say, I would not require you to be an expert in order to reflect on and have an opinion about Christianity and its "immune system."
1. We all doubt things- not just atheists. Atheists just doubt one particular thing that you don't. There are many things that you doubt that some atheists don't doubt.
2. The only qualifying criteria for a belief system concerning factual information is the validity of the evidence for or against it. Rejection of other theologies is built in dogma in religion. Atheism has no such rule-book. If anything, facts and evidence are the "immune system" for a rational worldview.
3. Again, there is no common dogma for atheists. My girlfriend in high school, 15 years ago, dumped me because I became atheist. She quoted from the Bible. Individual atheists may prefer to do the same to their partners when they adopt religious beliefs. But there is no dogmatic rule-book telling us to do so.
4. Again, no such dogmatic rule-book for atheists. Personally, I don't believe in absolutist morality at all. It's a vast subject that cannot be addressed by such blanket statements claiming that any one person or group are immoral.
5. You must have a belief for there to be a causal effect. Atheism is a non-belief. It cannot have any causal effect. Now, in the lack of a religious belief system, other beliefs are operating, giving the person their reason for living so to speak. Those beliefs are what determine what the person does, not the non-belief of atheism.
I was dumped too - but it wasn't in High school and it wasn't because I became atheist, it was because I refused to abandon my atheism.
Is that good or bad?
:-)
I am just commenting wrt the immune system proposed in the article. On point (1) I would say atheists and believers are in exact anti-phase to each other. For point (2), a rejection of the kind of assertion you made concerning it would disqualify your view points from acceptance by atheists. For point (3) I think belief about God (or not-God) is so life defining that it often does affect the compatibility of the couple. I wasn't advised to dump my husband just because he is atheist when I converted. On point (4) I don't believe that is in the rule book for Christians either. for the reasons I stated above. On point (5), your assertion is the type of statement I have in mind that illustrates that part of the immune system.
So, in essence you have misunderstood atheism. The only thing common to atheists is disbelief in god. In fact, you share this disbelief when it comes to thousands of other versions of god that are not your own. All those things you describe are not core-beliefs of atheists, because there are no beliefs in atheism.
I presume that we are both non-believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Could you tell me how a non-belief in the FSM affect your actions in the real world? The fact is that it cannot. Only an actual belief system can influence my actions.
I have been thinking about this typical argument atheists make for a while. And I think atheists are falsely trying to use an anaylsis of the word "atheism" as an argument: they are "not-theists" or "without gods" along with other things. But that is much more general than the actual meaning of being an atheist. You declare yourself "atheist" if someone asks you: what are your spiritual beliefs about the existence of God or gods? It is defining something you do believe *about spiritual life*: that there are no gods.
in contrast, about spiritual life I believe that there is a god and God is the true Universal god. People who don't believe in my God, are in the same camp with me--we are all theists. I am not atheistic even though I reject their gods, I just have a different god from them.
Nobody believes Santa Clause or unicorns or the FSM or the tooth fairy are gods or have anything to do with a spiritual life. Therefore, the fact that we both reject them as really existing, is completely irrelevant.
Also, the discontinuity of identity formations and learning is very significant. It opens the way to the hypothesis that with age and adolescence, some people are simply no longer able to face another 'uprooting' and hence stick to their old ways, even if they have clear signs that they don't work. There may be some deep anxiety rooted in experience of past learning processes which tells that there's a danger involved in the step towards the new. That it will at first frighten us, and that it is not clear that we will be able to handle it - and it's not even an irrational fear: few adults would be able to face the terror of 'growing up' again :-)
But there's also the complementary experience, of course: the one you describe from Truman. That it's eminently possible.
The idea that 'blaming the victim' can result from the 'Just world hypothesis' is mind-boggling.
Sounds a lot like a real key to understanding otherwise incoherent behaviour. I read 'Candide' a long time ago and I am quite aware of the theodicy, but I never connected those dots.
It can be a valid explanation even if there are also circumstances where 'blaming the victim' results from forms of hatred and ignorance that aren't exactly rooted in any kind of 'Just world hypothesis'. The proximity to a basic mode of fascist behaviour is evident. And while many have been (and some still are) deceived into the 'glory' of fascism on the basis of simple hatred, it may be that just as many are vulnerable to it because of their 'Just world' limitations.
On another thread that discusses the separation of church and state , someone asked: "When's the last time an atheist burned anybody at the stake for not not believing?" and I answered: under Stalin, Enver Hoxha, Pol Pot, and Ceausescu. -- These are clear cases where people were murdered for not believing and the people behind their deaths were atheists, so it satisfied the conditions posed by the questioner. Someone answered back: "You kick a guy enough, you have no one but to blame but yourself when his developes [sic] anger management issues". We are talking about the murders of millions of people. Do you think that the Just World hypothesis as rooted in a belief in God is valid here?
very difficult point. There's certainly no single, simple explanation rooted in a single and simple theory of the human condition that could hope to reveal the causes of such atrocities. It may even be part of the curse that defines these extreme events in human history that they reveal the limitations of complexity that keep us from understanding ourselves at the level of societies.
But I do think that both 'routes' to fascism are real and exist (among still others): you can have people who are severely underprivileged and who have been humiliated and victimized and who do not believe in any just world at all and become fascists for that reason, letting off steam. At the same time, you can have people who are relatively secure in their upbringing and life-circumstances, but who are limited in their worldview and have profound status-anxieties and who become fascists as a means to gain access to some kind 'extra cherry on top' for their self-worth, resulting from the mechanism based on the Just World Hypothesis, by blaming the hell out of victims so that they can appear pure and holy to themselves.
Fascism itself, as a political force, can probably exist only if enough of both kinds of aberrations gain traction, and some other must probably enter as well. For example, it also requires a failure of the press, of elites, of outside observers etc.
more to the point: I think that the question of atheism has very little to do with fascism.
It is true that Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were atheists and that hence, there is certainly no moral high ground in atheism per se. But it's more than a stretch to use these figures against atheism on the whole.
This is food for thought.
Well done.
Please make the next in this series part 5.51
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
