Cognitive Dissonance: Belief vs. Experience

I was a faithful Christian for the first 20 or so years of my life. I mean a fully indoctrinated, Bible-thumping, Jesus-loving, nightly-praying, church-going believer of The Word. I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, went to church regularly (even after I was old enough to stay home if I wanted), and even played bass in the praise band during my church's hip contemporary service. I know what it's like to be a believer, I know how most Christians acquire the beliefs that they hold, and, most importantly, I know what it's like to live in a world where those beliefs are constantly being called into question, or as Christians might say, tested.

I got the idea for this blog entry from watching a YouTube video made by a British fellow who goes by TheraminTrees. This video is actually the second in a series about his transition from faith-based beliefs to atheism, and his explanation in this second part is simply a perfect illustration of the effects of having beliefs that are inconsistent with our life experiences.

The phenomenon I'd like to talk about is one that is inherent in any faith-based belief system, and one that every Christian (and Muslim, and Jew) experiences and has to find creative ways to deal with. That phenomenon is something I'll call cognitive dissonance.

That sounds like a fancy phrase, but it simply comes down to this: we all have a set of beliefs, values, and assumptions about the world in which we live, many of which we acquire directly from our parents during our formative years as children. We all also live in a world which is constantly bombarding us with sensory data and experiences. We try to interpret all of these experiences through the lens of our beliefs. Sometimes the two are easily compatible, and there is congruence - our beliefs and our actual experiences coincide harmoniously. Sometimes our beliefs and experiences, however, seem to be at odds with each other, and this produces a problem, which I'm calling cognitive dissonance. Picture it this way:

As you can see, when our beliefs about the world and experiences of the world coincide, there is congruence. When they don't, there is dissonance. Congruence makes us feel comfortable and confident in our beliefs; dissonance makes us feel uncomfortable and uneasy about them.

I'll recount an example when I can clearly recall experiencing this sort of cognitive dissonance. When I was in high school, I took an elective course in Philosophy. One day we were talking about the origins of life on Earth. The various theories were laid out, most specifically creationism/intelligent design and evolution. (The theory of evolution does not actually seek to explain the origin of the first life form, a phenomenon known as abiogenesis, but let's just pretend like we're dealing with apples to apples here.) As a Christian, my belief was that God had something to do with the creation of life on Earth. In the theory of evolution, there is no mention of God whatsoever; the theory works without any such supposition. Looking at the evidence for evolution, however, produced a problem for me: the explanatory power of the theory was overwhelming and undeniable. I simply could not reject the theory outright, even though it did not align with my beliefs. This troubled me greatly, until I heard about a third option, namely special creation. This hybrid theory states that evolution occurred, but God intervened at several key points in order to ensure its success. I immediately latched onto this theory and, for a period of time, accepted this as my belief for the explanation of life on Earth.

In order to correct the dissonance between my belief and my experience, I needed to distort the theory. There was no compelling evidential reason for me to insert God. I was beginning with the assumption that God simply had to be in there somewhere, and so I distorted my beliefs until I could square them with my experiences. This is one way that believers can reconcile dissonance and try to make their beliefs and experiences congruent. The problem is that, just as in my example, this process invariably produces garbled nonsense. In the end, my conclusion was an incoherent bastardization of two different theories, but crucially, it alleviated my cognitive dissonance about the matter at the time.

A more salient example that many Christians are facing right now is the issue of homosexuality. Among younger people especially, this seems to be extremely important - I know people who have decided to attend different churches based solely on this one issue. In this case, the cognitive dissonance arises between the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin and the increasing acceptance of homosexuality by our culture. Many people who have close friends or family members who are gay find it difficult to condemn these people to hell for eternity as vile sinners.

There is a serious lack of congruence here between belief and experience, and there are many ways in which believers try to force a reconciliation. All attempts to do this require either distortion of belief or denial of experience. The believer has to convince himself that the scriptures must be interpreted in a different way; the translations are wrong, the verses apocryphal, the cultures incomparable, et cetera. The believer desperately wants to find a way to harmonize his sensibilities with his preconceived beliefs, and it is particularly difficult on this issue.

Christianity has some very serious dissonance built into it from the onset, in the form of obvious contradictions. Two examples that come to mind easily are the Garden of Eden story and the entire concept of prayer. Any amount of serious critical thought about these two things will reveal some serious cognitive dissonance, as I will attempt to illustrate.

The Garden of Eden story in Genesis is ridiculous for many reasons, but even if we dismiss it as entirely metaphorical and not descriptive of any actual event, it still has bigger problems. (Mind you, there's no textual justification for dismissing it as a metaphor - the Bible never suggests that the story is anything but literal truth.) We all know the story: God creates Adam and Eve and two magical trees, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. God tells Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge. A wily snake slithers up and tells Eve that God is lying, so she eats from the forbidden tree and gives some to Adam too, so they've both made a mess of it. Yadda yadda yadda, original sin.

The contradiction comes in God's reaction to this incident. By his very nature, God is said to be omniscient. He knows all that ever was, is, and will be. If that is the case, then God should never be surprised or react with any emotion to anything that ever happens, because he already knows exactly what will happen. This makes it absurd that God would ever be angry for anything that anyone ever does or doesn't do. If God is omniscient, then he knew that Adam and Eve would eat from the forbidden tree and be cursed forever. This story is supposed to explain original sin, but it actually implicates God as the originator of sin. God knew what would happen; he set Adam up to fail. The God we read about in the Bible does not react as if he is omniscient. The believer must try to square this massive inconsistency of experience with his beliefs in order to produce congruence.

 

Prayer is another head-scratcher of a contradiction. This is perhaps the most resonant source of cognitive dissonance among believers, because everyone has experienced a so-called "unanswered prayer." The process by which believers reconcile this troubling experience with their belief is by invoking "God's will." If anything happens, it is because God willed it to happen, and if we cannot understand the reasons, this is simply because we cannot understand God. Invoking "God's will" is a tacit admission that God does not listen to or answer prayers. He's going to do whatever he wants to do anyway, whether you pray about it or not. And remember, since he's omniscient, he already knows what you want. There's nothing you can tell him that he doesn't already know, including the fact that you don't want your grandmother to die from cancer. Praying is one of the most futile, contradictory, arrogant, misguided acts imaginable, and believers all but admit this themselves. One can make giant leaps towards congruence of belief and experience by simply disavowing the idea of a God who answers prayers; by our very experiences we know this to be simply false. Prolonging this clash between reality and unfounded belief only invites unnecessary suffering on oneself.

The problem with faith-based belief is that it demands that we reject our experiences. Instead, people are raised to believe completely arbitrary and unsupported claims like God is perfectly good. We have to dismiss our own experiences, which tell us that any God who offers eternal punishment for a transgression is unjust and cannot be good. No crime, however severe, could ever possibly justify an eternal punishment. One can only reconcile those conflicting statements by distrusting and rejecting one's own intuition. This is profoundly unhealthy behavior.

In the video above, TheraminTrees talks about atheism as a congruence. When you don't begin with a set of beliefs which you did not arrive at through evaluation of your experiences, congruence occurs naturally and much more frequently. There is no struggle to contort your experiences into a rigid predetermined framework. Atheism is not a rejection of God, it is an admission that there is no evidence for God. This is the only logical framework that promotes harmony between belief and experience. Believing things on no evidence, and rejecting evidence which does not fit with beliefs, is a recipe for constant struggle to reconcile belief with the real world, and for the believer, it must be exhausting.

If you believe things on faith, ask yourself why you have these beliefs. You will discover that you don't actually have faith in Christ. You've never met Christ. You have faith in other people who have never met Christ but have told you about Christ. You have faith in The Bible, which was written by people, none of whom knew Christ. This is no way to form beliefs about the world, as it leads to dissonance. Base your beliefs on your experiences, and you'll be stunned how quickly everything falls into harmony and makes sense. I've found that it's much easier to sleep at night as an atheist than as a Christian.

"Atheism is a Religion" and Other Fallacious Criticisms by Believers

As someone who is fairly open about being a strongly not-religious person, it often happens that I get into discussions (they start out that way, at least) with people who disagree with my worldview (or lack thereof). As any non-believer can tell you, there aren't very many criticisms of disbelief; there are actually only a few, and they inevitably come up in any discussion about belief and non-belief, and I'd like to point out why they're silly. 

The first is that atheism is a religion. The second, that "militant" or "extreme" atheism is just as bad as religious fundamentalism. The third, that blind faith in science is the same as blind faith in God. Lastly, that believing things based on evidence rather than faith is "arrogant." I've chosen these particular sentiments because they've all been lobbed at me by people I know, many of them more than once, and because they're all nonsense.

1. Atheism is a Religion

This is a very common retort, and perhaps the most easily dismissed. One need only look at a dictionary definition of the word religion to end the argument, I should think. Dictionary.com says:

1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

Atheism in no way fits either of these definitions. That's because there is no dogma in atheism; there's nothing you must believe in order to be an atheist. It's not even a set of beliefs - it's simply the rejection of other belief systems. It's saying to the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, et cetera that you simply don't think their beliefs are true. [If you can't understand the difference between the statements "I don't believe that x is true" and "I believe that x is not true," please stop reading and come back when you can.] If you ask an atheist what they think about these things, namely the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," you'll get many different answers, with a common one likely being "I don't know."

As somebody once cleverly noted, if atheism is a religion, then "off" is a TV channel. Actually, atheists can't even agree on what word best describes themselves. Various suggestions come into and go out of fashion: atheist, non-theist, non-religious, free-thinker, humanist, bright, agnostic - the point is that it's really just "none of the above" on the religion list. The only thing that atheists are united by is simply what the word means: a (not) + theism (belief in god.) The reasons for not believing, and the explanations or answers to the questions to which religion generally provides answers, will be different for everyone. Atheism is not a religion, it's the absence of religion. 

2. Militant and Extreme Atheism

I like this one a lot, because it is self-evidently nonsensical after about 30 seconds of contemplation. Hijacking these adjectives which are generally reserved for religious fundamentalists and applying them to atheism is an exercise in utter futility. When someone is labeled a religious "extremist," for example, it's generally because this person has either killed other people because of his beliefs, or he at least judges it perfectly acceptable to do so. Religious extremists tend to be quite dangerous and frightening, as these are the most devout and hard-core followers of the literal word of their holy text.

What is a militant atheist? An extreme atheist? How often do you read a news report about someone who has violently murdered someone else in the name of atheism? There are degrees of the seriousness of one's religious convictions; there are no degrees of atheism. A casual atheist says "I don't believe in god." An extreme atheist says "I don't believe in god." Does the extreme one say it louder? Does he write it on a sign maybe? Write blog posts about it?

Generally I've found that anyone who is vocal about his atheism or openly critical of other peoples' beliefs gets labeled as "militant" or "fundamentalist," simply because people really don't like to be told that their entire worldview is based on lies. These are complete misuses of those negatively-charged words, and the comparison is laughable at best and offensive at worst. Nobody in the world is rioting in the streets and slaughtering innocent people because of atheism. While thousands of people in the Muslim world chant "death to the atheist bloggers," people at free-thinking rallies hold up signs like "What do we want? Evidence-based change! When do we want it? After peer-review!" People who are vocal about their atheism and critical of others' absurd beliefs are not dangerous, so stop throwing around these awful words as if they're apt.

3. Faith in Science and Faith in God

Religious people try as hard as they can to assert (and they all think they're clever, as if they're the first to do it) that atheists simply replace God with Science and worship it in the same way, so at the end of the day it's really the same thing. This is a woefully irresponsible comparison. First of all, "science" is (if I may use my good friend the dictionary again) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Most important in that definition is what's missing, not what's included. There are certain fundamental questions, such as the meaning of life, or what happens after you die, or what sort of moral code we should all adopt, which science does not try to answer. Science is fine with not having an answer to some questions; it's perfectly fine to say "I don't know," or "I don't care" about these sorts of questions.

The scientific method, for example, is an empirically testable and productive process of finding the truth about the world in which we live. It allows for independent verification, actively tries to eliminate bias, and is perfectly happy with getting results that prove hypotheses wrong. There is no need to use the word "faith" when talking about scientific observation. We needn't simply have faith that gravity exists, or that the world is a sphere, or that the sun will come up tomorrow. We can go find out all of that for ourselves and prove it to be true, and understand why it's true. It's easy to trust the scientific method because it produces verifiable results. Using it cures disease and develops new technologies and explains phenomena in the world around us.

Faith is a particularly nasty attribute of religion, and it amounts to nothing more than claiming to believe something to be true when you have absolutely no evidence that it is. Christians, for example, have faith that they will go to heaven when they die. They have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever, but assert it as if it's fact, even though they couldn't possibly prove it. This is a nice way to transition to the last complaint about atheism, namely...

4. Atheism (or Science) is Arrogant

This sentiment is the most irritating to me personally, because it's so inherently contradictory that it's baffling that religious people can possibly think this way. Again, I think the dictionary will help us sort this out quite succinctly: making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement. 

Let's just take some commonly-held beliefs among Christians, since this is the belief system with which I'm the most familiar. Christians believe that God created the universe for the sole purpose of the existence of human beings, and that he loves us and watches/cares about what we do. We now know that our planet is only one of several in our solar system, that our solar system is one of many in our galaxy, and our galaxy is one of many in the universe. With each increasingly powerful telescope we create, we reveal just how completely insignificant and unremarkable our existence is, and yet this completely self-centered belief that it's all for us persists among believers. This sort of thinking is both bafflingly ignorant and tenaciously arrogant. Many people of faith also deny the truth of evolution simply on the grounds that humans are somehow above having evolved from primates, so it's just not possible. 

The scientific worldview, on the other hand, is one of extreme humility: human existence in the grand scheme of the universe is staggeringly insignificant, and our time on the Earth is but a blink in the massive extent of geological time. Science admits when it's wrong, even after it thought it was right for a long time. I've collected a few catchy little epigrams about religion to make the point:

"Science has questions which may never be answered. Religion has answers which may never be questioned."

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."

"Morality is doing what's right regardless of what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told regardless of what's right."

The Point

The only reason atheists even have to call themselves something is because irrational people invented gods; there wouldn't be any need for such a word otherwise. If you're a believer in some sort of god and have faith that a bunch of extremely unlikely things are true, fine. But don't try to bring us non-believers down by insinuating that we're just like religious people in any way. We define ourselves by not being like you at all.