- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There is an excellent, balanced article on Cog Dis at the FAIR website written by Wendy Ulrich, PhD: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Faith_Cognitive_Dissonance_and_the_Psychology_of_Religious_Experience.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Faith_Cognitive_Dissonance_and_the_Psychology_of_Religious_Experience.html There were a lot of great points, but I’ll just choose one that I think is valuable in understanding what people do with cognitive dissonance and why (from a psychological perspective):
Quote:Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance basically says that when people encounter information that challenges their existing beliefs or behavior they will feel tension which they will be motivated to reduce by changing their beliefs or behavior to be more internally consistent. This suggests that if we are doing things that require sacrifice and investment, and we believe ourselves to be reasonable people, as we will tend to conclude that the Church which requires these behaviors must be true or, being rational beings, we wouldn’t do them. Thus we unwittingly increase our commitment to the organization that requires these difficult tasks in order to justify our behavior. We organize a world view to explain our sacrifices, and when we get new information that doesn’t seem to fit with old paradigms we prefer to ignore or discredit the information rather than replace the paradigm we have invested in so heavily. Cognitive dissonance theory supports, at some level, the view long-held by many sociologists and psychologists that religion is an irrational, fear-based choice and that people who are religious are too afraid to change their beliefs when confronted with obvious contradictions. Religion is seen as an inherently irrational choice that must be explained away as the result of some kind of brainwashing. The premise is that no rational person would believe in the delusional vision of an obvious sex offender like Joseph Smith, for example, so if people are committed to such a belief system it is because they are duped, irrational, or in denial. Their beliefs are not modified by enlightening evidence that would normally cause them to see things differently because they are acting in very committed ways such as paying tithing, attending meetings, sitting through weird temple rites, going to girl’s camp, and publicly espousing their beliefs. These actions cause them to believe that the Church must be true because they believe they are rational people and would not be doing all these weird things the Church expects unless it were true.
More recently, sociologists Stark and Finke7 have amassed considerable research evidence to support a different theory based on the assumption that religious people truly are rational within the choices available to them, and that we make religious choices to increase the benefits we obtain for the investment we make, much the way we make economic decisions. People in demanding religions are more committed to them, not because it is the only way to make sense of their own irrational sacrifices, but because they accrue many benefits like social support, free food, decision-making rules, opportunities to develop talents, meaningful activities, answers to life’s deeper questions, and closeness to God that are possible because they and others are making these sacrifices, making them cost-effective.
I wonder if there is not truth to both viewpoints.
I could personally cite examples for both of these theories. I tend to be in the CBA camp, looking at things from a benefits standpoint. But I also know many who are in the “I’m rational; therefore, the church is true” camp without necessarily calling it that.
What did you find interesting in the article?
That was an amazing article/talk! Thanks, hawk! I yearn for the day when this would be a GC talk.
š³ (I know, I know, no expectations!!)I think her four stages of a relationship are fabulous. This is the exact cycle of codependency which must be overcome. So, I think what she proposes should be tackled in a practical way in reverse of her presentation. First, get past codependency, then seek progression by delving into the unknown. If one is still codependent when they start searching, the things they find will handicap that progression and could stifle the recovery of emotional health.
This should be required reading for everyone, imho. Me, included. (I probably should read it often
š³ )I tend to agree, HG. I could spend hours going into my cog-dis history, and how my perception of Mormonism (and most dogmatic religions in general) evolved dramatically, but the bottom-line is that I think members stay (and avoid cog-dis) differently, depending on personality types. Over a decade ago when I was confronted with church history contradictions, I assumed that everybody else would want to know what I’d found out…and I wanted to know how “we” should deal with this damning information.
Boy, was I wrong!
Most that I asked about it did all they could to avoid the conversation. I came to learn that they either, 1) really didn’t want to know, didn’t care…they were totally comfortable with their current paradigm, and didn’t want reason to have to re-consider anything that was working for them; or 2) had at least a surface defense mechanism that all the challenges were simply anti-mormon attacks that if given enough research by the experts, would be proven wrong anyway.
For me, I would have fallen into each category slightly, except that I was in a place where the “pain” was enough that I chose to learn more. IOW, the discomfort was great enough that I needed to find out how to find consistency with my experience. I eventually found it, and evolved to a completely different view of religion…and am VERY grateful for the experience.
Today, when I hear, or read, that people “struggle” with doctrinal issues, I relate, but just smile a bit feeling that I understand what is really going on. It really comes down (IMHO) to expectations. We are (were) taught to expect something for our efforts. We were taught that “blessings” come after obedience to certain rules. If I step back and try to see the bigger picture…how it all really came to be in the first place…it makes sense to me, and I just have to lower my expectations. The way I see it, my (un)happiness is directly proportional to expectations of others.
(sorry, got off the cog-dis topic a bit there…)
Dr. Ulrich is amazing. No time now, but thanks for posting this, Hawk. Thank you soooooo much Hawkgrrrl…what a great article. This part struck me the most:
Quote:The fourth and final stage of committed relationships is about renewal. Not exactly a renewal of the honeymoon, but a more mature, realistic, and truly loving renewal. We come to accept our spouse or our parents or the Church, and we come to accept ourselves. We allow God to run the universe,
and we become more content to let go of things we cannot change.I continue to strive to want to believe God does run the universe and there is purpose to life and an afterlife with meaning and value, and that religion isn’t just something for the weak-minded or something that is a self-hypnotic treatment for the difficulties of reality. But I have been hurt by my prior failed (and unrealistic) expectations and feel more protective to not “go all in” and then get let down again…I need to reset my expectations to a more realistic view of the spiritual nature of this life and the real and physical circumstances that require my true respect and attention.
I really liked the essay.
Heber13 wrote:…I need to reset my expectations to a more realistic view of the spiritual nature of this life and the real and physical circumstances that require my true respect and attention.
I think it’s as simple as that Heber! Perfectly said!!!!!
Yes, excellent article, thanks for posting it. I referred to it in my introduction ā itās amazing, I love it. It was one of the key things that helped me realize I was burdened by my old āabsolutistā paradigm, and I needed to āget realisticā if I was going to enable any healing between myself and the church. Iām amazed at how many times Iāve read it and found something new each time. Rix wrote:I came to learn that they either, 1) really didn’t want to know, didn’t care…they were totally comfortable with their current paradigm, and didn’t want reason to have to re-consider anything that was working for them…
This reminds me of a thought I used to have. I was being nudged toward stage 4, but I used to say to myself āit doesnāt even matter, I wouldnāt change a thing in my life even if it’s not true.ā
I loved the lifestyle and didnāt have any need to examine what I didnāt care to change (until I got all the way ‘over the edge’ that is).
I also love the way Ulrich says it’s healthy to lose our illusions. We should be grounded in reality. Faith and reality can coexist, and as Gregory Prince says: “…the only thing that can truly promote faith is the truth. Shielding people from reality cannot promote true faith.”
Orson wrote:Gregory Prince says: “…the only thing that can truly promote faith is the truth. Shielding people from reality cannot promote true faith.”
Yes, I like this quote as well. In many respects, I think this is what Joseph Smith taught in the school of the prophets. Faith requires some knowledge of something true, and then allows you to believe beyond the known and into the arena of believing something that is true but cannot be proven. And so, shielding people from reality or real life props up faith on a sandy ground that will one day fall in the storms of life.Re Rix: That is almost verbatim how I feel as well.
Hawkgirl….Thank you so much for posting this article. It is truly an answer to prayer, as my Danish friend, inparticular, is really struggling with being able to believe in God, Jesus, the church, or relationships right now. This is always a painful place to be, but like the article said, not necessarily a bad thing because it can help us change and grow to be more mature. I know that my friend’s horrible childhood of sexual abuse colors all the disilluioments he has experienced in the church and with people. As a little girl growing up, I loved watching Cinderella. It was so magical and the idea of finding true love and living happily ever after was the idealistic world I wanted to live in. My parents had a bad marriage and fought alot. Within those two paradiagms, I grew up not really knowing what ‘real’ love looks like. I think this happens to so many of us. So, when we do find someone and go through that honeymoon stage, have the beautiful wedding, and begin our new life playing house, all seems wonderful for awhile. Then we begin to discover the weaknesses and faults of our mate and the disilluioment period comes. I love how this author of this article incompasses relationships with spouses, children, the church, and God throughout these stages. This article really helped me visualize what mature religious beliefs, and relationships should look like.
We do want to base our lives on truth and reality, otherwise the bubble will burst someday, and leave us falling down and drowing. Faith is such a difficult thing though because part of it is trusting what we cannot see, hear, or touch. I was just watching about these people who were fasting 36 hours and then spending 24 hours in this steam room camp with two people dying. This chrismatic leader was someone these people believed in, despite the irrational medical advice of doing such a thing. We live in a scary world of deceptions and so it is not easy to know whom or what we can trust. But, we make our best judgments, and a leap of faith and try praying and asking God if Jesus Christ is truly His son and the way, the truth and the light. It’s planting a seed, and seeing if it will grow. You do it with small things at first. Because I would not just trust someone who sounded nice to drink some snake venom. I want to believe in Christ, I hope so much he is real and true. Our experiences of trying things out and seeing if they work is the only answer I have. I have followed enough impressions now that have made me learn so many great things, that I want to continue on this path.
Yep, I’m with all of you that think this was a really good article and the type of thing that would be nice to see in General Conference (I say after reading half a dozen of the talks from the most recent Conference).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.