How do you deal with cognitive dissonance?

Post Reply New Topic

I thought of putting this in the intolerance thread, but that thread is so full of intolerance I thought maybe a separate thread would be a better idea.

I have one question to those of you who are both religious and critical thinkers:

How do you deal with the cognitive dissonance that arises when you are rightly accused of a logical fallacy?


Please understand I am NOT asking this just so I can pounce at anything and everything I disagree with in your replies.
I am genuinely curious. This is not meant as bait. I believe that some well formed answers might help me understand and respect how you think, even if I don't always accept *what* you think.

It happens to me every now and then, of course (hopefully less and less often), that I present some opinion, and someone points out that I am guilty of some form of logical mistake. Sometimes it is really embarrassing, too. It's not pleasant to be caught in a common trap when you think you're building a perfectly logical argument.

Many times it hits me like a slap to the face, but here's the thing: Being a critical thinker, and not bound by dogma, I am completely free to change my mind, and alter my position, or at the very least refine my argument so that the logic errors are resolved. Some times I succeed by changing my approach, some times I have to let certain ideas go. A few times I have had to completely rebuild my understanding of reality.

A great deal of the more common religious arguments are easily dismissed from a logical point of view, and it is clear that many religious people absolutely do not mind this. They either don't understand the logic, or they don't care, perhaps. Either way, I have seen many times that a certain type of people, religious or not, will continue using arguments that do not make any kind of logical sense, even after having been thoroughly explained the flaws in their arguments. Obviously this kind of thinker does not impress me much.

Which brings me to the other kind of religious people - those who DO care about their arguments making sense from a logical point of view.

If you use an argument, and it is dismissed using tools of logic that you yourself approve of, how do you approach that? What I'm trying to get at is that obviously you want your basic religious foundations to remain solid, but if someone points out an inescapable flaw in that foundation, how do you go about reinforcing it? Do you abandon some parts of your thinking, or do you somehow learn to live with your double-think, like I tend to mockingly justify drinking alcohol or smoking, for instance, or riding my motorcycle too fast, all the while knowing the dangers to myself and sometimes others?
Some times I will argue against points I agree with, simply because the other guy has a very different political view than me, for instance. But when I get home and think things over, I am some times forced to admit (first to myself) that my position is flawed. In the long run, this might make me a better person, or at least a more sound thinker.

Do some of you struggle with these kinds of issues, or do you feel at some deeper level that your religion somehow liberates you from the mental friction of firmly believing something after you have understood why it isn't a logically defendable position?


Tormod.

Hmm, one quick quip and I'll be silent.

I don't think there is an audience for your question....

Can you be more specific?

Not really.
This was written under the assumption that having two mutually exclusive thoughts in one mind leads to reflection in other people than myself, and that it is universal in the sense that this happens also if one of those thoughts is a religious teaching or argument of some sort. And that most people will search for a resolution to their inner conflict in some way. Seems to me these are fairly safe assumptions.


I also know how hard it can be to let go of cherished ideas.

I rarely perform straight-up logical fallacies. I have had my ideas debunked before though, more in politics than religion though. And when I noticed this failure, I tended to shut down until I had done work in making corrections. However, for a smaller defect, I am likely to avoid this point of weakness as best I can, and shift the burden to other parts of the intellectual system. I have outright changed my positions massively if I come to think that a central conception is flawed.

With religion, I tend to find myself less open to corrections, as I come into the discussion recognizing traditional religious conceptions as irredeemably absurd, and at this point, apologetics appear to be an effort to defend outright falsehood. In terms of what I understand, divine ideas are already very lacking in credibility from the very beginning both on their philosophical grounds, but also my background of seeing them supported very well beyond their evidence.

(Note: This attitude is one of the reasons why I've started ducking out when I start running into an outright determined apologist. Especially when I see the argument as a bit silly.)

I'm not religious but I often catch myself thinking superstitious thoughts. For instance, if something bad happens to me I often perceive it as being due to karma - punishment for treating someone else badly.

The strange thing is though, if someone asked me if I believe in karma I would say no! And I could write a detailed essay giving rational arguments for why I dont believe in it.

Clearly, in some cases the rational and the irrational can live together quite happily side by side in my brain. I don't think this makes me unusual or insane. I think a lot of people, if not all people, are guilty of this sometimes.

Honestly, I rethink my position.

It's not a big deal, just accept that there are loose ends in your ideas because you don't know everything there is to know.

I'm not religious, but this question does apply pretty well to any firmly held beliefs.

I do have a hard time with it. More often than not I know that the other person is correct in their criticisms of my opinion/argument, but I stick to it because yay, stubbornness. Or, well. It honestly depends on the demeanor of the other person. If they are attacking me (not merely arguing a point), then I will be highly defensive and stick to my guns in spite of the fact that I know they are neither loaded nor much more than toys. I am trying to work on that, though.

If they aren't attacking me, then I will rethink my position aloud during the course of the argument and may change my mind.

Always I will reconsider inwardly, it's just a matter of whether I outwardly let them know at the time.

It doesn't really cause cognitive dissonance. I just examine what I said to see if there was, in fact, a logical fallacy, and if there was, I say to myself
"Oh you stupid Rachel. Think better in future."

If you try to reason your way to God, you will fail because belief in God is not reasonable.

God resides in the heart, not the mind. As Pascal noted, "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing."

I am non-religious, but I am opinionated to the point of being a pompous, belligerent ass. Yes, this sometimes puts me in a position of having rabidly defended an idea that I thought at the time was simple common sense.

What usually happens to me is that I will become agitated, and I will start obsessively digging up whatever information that I can on the topic. Eventually, I will piece together a new thesis, and I will present a somewhat poorly articulated version of it. I will rant about arcane details pertaining to it for several hours, putting off and ignoring other things in my life that require my attention, ultimately refining it somewhat. Sometimes, I can become so manic, even megalomaniacal over it that I can become abusive and nasty toward others. It's not unusual for me to bark something like, "ARE YOU REALLY SO BONE LAZY THAT YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO READ A MERE 500 PAGES OF LEGISLATION BEFORE FORMING AN OPINION ABOUT IT?" and then rant obscenely about how appalling it is that this is actually true of most people. This is part of why I am banned from forums routinely.

However, I do end up learning a lot of cool and interesting stuff, and I feel accomplished and gratified in the end.

[quote="WilliamWDelaney"]

I make mistakes every day.

Do you?

I was a professional logician so I general do not make logical errors. My errors are of a factual nature, by and large.



ruveyn

[quote="WilliamWDelaney"]

I make mistakes every day.

Do you?

I was a professional logician so I generally do not make logical errors. My errors are of a factual nature, by and large.



ruveyn