Why so friggin' confident?

hey Larni,Have you studied cognitive dissonance? It seems there is an inverse relationship between the logic of a position and the amount of assurance your have in it:Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

​

Boring task experiment

​

In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to perform boring and tedious tasks (e.g. turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. After an hour of working on the tasks, participants were asked to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not asked to perform the favor.

​

When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study, those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behavior, and thus experienced less dissonance.[5]

​

Postdecision dissonance

​

In a different type of experiment conducted by Jack Brehm, 225 female students rated a series of common appliances and were then allowed to choose one of two appliances to take home as a gift. A second round of ratings showed that the participants increased their ratings of the item they chose, and lowered their ratings of the rejected item.[7] This can be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. When making a difficult decision, there are always aspects of the rejected choice that one finds appealing and these features are dissonant with choosing something else. In other words, the cognition, "I chose X" is dissonant with the cognition, "There are some things I like about Y." More recent research has found similar results in four-year-old children and capuchin monkeys.[8]

---

It seems (to me) that the people rationalized a need for their decisions\position afterwards, or invested more emotional conviction in it.What's your take?Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

It would be using that certain thing as proof that the contents of that certain thing are true.

I know I'm repeating myself, so this will be the last time I give you or anyone else this answer.Peter declared this in Acts 2:38-39, The "gift of the Holy Spirit" may not be proof to you or to others at the EvC forum, but it's proof to those who "repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins." This proof is not given by God to skeptics such as yourself.It's as simple and as difficult as that!Blessings

Brian writesUnderstood. So would the "thing" that is attributed to G. Washington not be true or should it be totally diregared because in that instance there is not enough supporting evidence. In other words, it would not be a violation or reason to assume given all the other supporting evidence, that it may have happened as stated, correct? Yes or no?D Bertot

Not at first.But when they happened to me and to countless others for 2000 years as was reported in Acts 1 & 2, then the faith that I and other followers of the Lord Jesus Christ have becomes SUBSTANCE through the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit.

It may or may not be true, and it would depend on what it is claiming (as well as other things) as to whether it is disregarded or not.What you could say is that source 'X' suggests that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and when asked for proof that Jesus was born in Bethlehem you say that source 'X' says so.There are many other factors of course, such as author, date of composition, but my point is that to use a source as proof that what that source says is true is circular reasoning.Take the Bethelem thing again. Whether Micah refers to a town or a tribe is immaterial for this example. I have been told many times that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy in Micah 5:2 because He was born in Bethlehem, when I ask for proof of this ALL I am given is another part of the Bible!Of course this doesn't mean that He wasnt born in Bethlehem, it just means that using a source to prove itself isn't very good scholarship. If we all took this approach then how could we deny anything in any religion or historical text?

It's interesting to note that in this thread various Christians have insisted that they do have evidence for their faith. Clearly this is at odds with the very definition of faith, but I think it's interesting that they feel that their beliefs are supported by evidence at all.Note especially Buzz's typical examples of the "evidence" behind his faith. He usually refers to fulfilled Biblical prophesy, both internal to the Bible and out here in the real world. You'll also note that, in every single thread he's ever brought up on the subject of fulfilled prophesy, he's never once been able to convince anyone that his interpretations are correct.This is a perfect example of the cyclic self-reinforcement of the meme of religion utilizing the human predisposition for pattern over-reognition. Buzz correctly determines that, to verify that his beliefs have a connection to reality, the prophesies in the Bible must have some sort of veracity. Unfortunately, Buzz (and others like him) is not objective - he's not following the evidence where it leads, he's searching specifically for that which seems to fit with his already-determined conclusions. Combined with the rather vague nature of prophesies in the first place, it's no wonder that a loose interpretation and a biased mind could easily find plenty of "Evidence" to support and reinforce his beliefs.You can see the same mechanism in almost every case of interpretation of prophesy or other paranormal phenomenon. How many people of faith (not just Christians) have predicted the end of the world within their lifetimes, and been wrong? How many times do religious leaders predict "trying times" or natural disasters in a sufficiently vague manner as to make "fulfilment" inevitable, thereby reinforcing the meme when natural disasters that happen every year repeat their usual cycle? I'm sure we've all seen examples of "cold-read" psychics who prey on the same thing to make it seem like they've contacted a deceased loved one. When people want to believe something, they'll find "evidence" in support of their beliefs. This is why none of these things have ever stood up to serious scientific scrutiny. Even loose scrutiny, as demonstrated by James Randi (do a youtube search and watch him expose fraudulent psychics, prophets, dowsers, and the like), will handily dismiss the utility of such "evidence"Christianity specifically also contains a large number of self-referential prophesies - that is, "predictions" are made in the Bible which are "fulfilled" later in the Bible. Now, any person of sense can see that any novel with a bit of foreshadowing can do the same thing - but exception is made for the Bible because it's somehow more "real."John 10:10 is also a perfect example - nearly all of his replies answer the question "why do you believe scripture" with scriptural references. In effect, he's answering the question "why do you believe your fairy book is true" by saying "because my fairy book says it's true." The premise requires the conclusion - classic circular reasoning.Their reasoning isn't really about evidence. They honestly believe they have evidential support, but what passes for "evidence" for them would be laughed out of any scientific institution as unfalsifiable nonsense. Instead, the reason for faith is as I stated before - confirmation bias and pattern recognition combined with such things as wishful thinking and social pressure. It's their desire to view themselves (and be viewed) as rational human beings that causes them to try to validate their beliefs with real-world evidence, and their commitment to those beliefs and general human failings that causes them to find that evidence where none really exists.

Hi RAZD,I not studied cognitive dissonance since I was an undergrad but I've always had a soft spot for it!When I saw you response to BMG saying that cognitive dissonance was two words and you replied with I imagined BMG having cognitive dissonance for a second as his or her mind wrestled with seeing two words and being told it was one word.I thought this was hilarious. I agree totally. I've noticed this in myself when I either buy or borrow a computer game (bear with me): if I own it and spent money on it I seem to be more positively disposed towards it.If I'm simply having a lend of it I have no tolerance for any faults at all (because I've invested nothing in it) and in fact seem to be irrationally negatively biased against games I borrow. Perhaps because I want to believe my generous lender is an idiot with poor taste.I was never too impressed with Festinger and Carlsmith's conclusions but I don't think I'm really qualified to challenge them but, here is a naughty little quote mine I liked the sound of Festinger & Carlsmith Cognitive dissonance consequences of forced complianceI've encountered some people in my professional life who have grown up believing some concept is a truth only to discover that the world does not work the way they believed.This kind of dissonance has led to so pretty bazaar cognitive distortions to remove cognitive dissonance. In several cases this has led to ideas of conspiracy against the individual who is so sure that the world works 'just so' and so confused that their experience contradicts their beliefs that they construct a 'personal reality' where they can square the circle.So we could have a young adult told by his or her parent that they are 'special' and destined for great things feeling terribly confused when they don't seem to be doing exceptionally.At a very basic level we can see those poor souls on X Factor who are appalling singers and yet there parents fuel their perceptions that they can in fact sing.Then they explode when they have to deal with the reality of the situation.One could argue that literalists are constantly squaring the circle in their own heads because reality does not match with belief.Just like when the X factor wannabes rant and rave that the experts are wrong and they really are great singers.

Brian writes:Its happening again I Believe we are moving away from the thread topic. But here goes one more.Thats part of the uniquness of the sciptures, that Micah lived 100s of years before him, so while it is one body of knowledge and teaching, it is at the same time different writers in diffferent times, speaking through inspiration to a idea.What kind of proof would you expect to find outside the scriptures that Jesus was or was not born in Bethelem? I pretty sure that two weary travlers in a manger would be of no significance to any civil authorities. I dont expect that the the local news station was on hand, do you? I believe the collective physical and material evidence in and for the scriptures far out weighs those of most beliefs or ideologies. Most religions or ideologies are simply philisophical in character and most try to start with the scriptures as in the case of Islam. Most are simply ideologies with no real supporting evidence as in the case of the overall character of the scriptures.Yes there are some things that are scant in material evidence, yet overall it is believable to establish a reliable Faith, trust, belief or whatever word you choose.Thanks for the exchange.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. Here we see a reference to a prophesy in the Bible which is later fulfilled in a different book of the Bible.Bertot correctly points out that this is not the same as, say, a fantasy novel where Chapter 1 contains a prophesy and in Chapter 13 the main character fulfills it.Unfortunately, the prophesies of the Bible still contain no outside verification (admittedly difficult with birth records and so on, but not for the more major historical events that were supposed to fulfill prophesy). Without true outside verification, the stories of the Bible are impossible to differentiate from fiction, regardless of the fact that the Bible's multiple books were written by different authors over a long period of time.If I wrote a sequel to a 50-year-old novel by a different author, and in my story I fulfilled a prophesy made in the first book, we would have a situation identical to the Biblical case - an internally fulfilled prophesy that has absolutely no outside verification.It's a simple case of double-standards and circular reasoning. Most of these cases are unfalsifiable to boot, so they match perfectly with the confirmation-bias reasoning and pattern over-recognition that causes faith.

This thread is in essence asking, "How can anyone firmly accept something on faith alone?"For everyone whose answer is, "There's nothing I accept on faith alone," I guess they're done in this thread.--Percy

Hi Reality Man,Because you proposed a thread in which you did not intend to participate, I'm removing your thread-proposing permissions in the [forum=-25] forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Rrhavin writes:I wish I had time to respond to nearly all of your last two post, but I dont as I have to scoot off to work.Let me just address these two statments as they seem to sum up your conclusion. I am not saying that prophecy is the sole reason one should have faith in the scriptures as Gods word. And certainly anyone could sit and pick apart the details in the nearly 300 phrohicies attributed to Christ in the NT. I am saying that overall the historical content about dates, places, times and events are like that of no other body of work.The NT letters support the book of Acts, the Acts, support the Gospels, the Gospels support the OT, so and so forth. Its a body of work that has no rivals in its character and content.Certainly I have no way of proving that the angel Morni did not speak to Joseph Smith, but I doubt it, do to the fact that none of its content can be corroborated in any real sense. I have no way of proving that God did not speak to Mohammad, but I doubt it, because the book of Koran is mostly a copy of the OT scriptures and it contains no real verifiable facts.The Judeo-Christian faith is not of this sort. It provides a very real platform from which to establish a believable Faith, even while some of the more incredible incidents do not contain as demonstratable evidence.Then there is always the aspect of omnipotence, intervention, the miraculous and inspiration. Even if these are dismissed, one must admit the scriptures are like no other work of religious historical contentD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

I must say, you're still missing ned's point.let's spell it out in absolutely clear terms.You are not prepared to discuss the bible with people who have never read the bible, who have little and most likely wrong knowledge about it.We are not prepared to discuss evolution with people who have never seriously studied it (say, by reading a college level evo. bio text or taking such a class), who have little and most likely wrong knowledge about evolution.And yet, who is it who comes barging in with the latest proof that will destroy evolution (aside from ray, that is)? The very same creos who are not predisposed to discuss the bible with "biblically" ignorant people.The point is: if knowledge pertaining to a subject is required to discuss it, why do creos discuss that which they have no real knowledge of?The irony kills.

And neither am I claiming that religious folks cite fulfilled prophesy as the only "evidence" of their position. It was simply an example on-hand. False. Other religious texts contain historical data as well. Purely fictional stories even contain similar references to real-world historical events and geographical locations. Furthermore, uniqueness does not equate to veracity. And Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone supports Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban. Or more accurately, the original Star Wars trilogy supports the many books written over 20 years later by different authors, which each support each other as well. Self-consistency across multiple authors and long periods of time (particularly when the authors were almost certainly aware of each other's writings and were all working from the same source material) does not translate to authenticity.The Bible has many rivals, Bertot. The difference is that you attribute special meaning to the Bible, meaning it is different to you. A most amusing admission, considering that many of the historical events in the Bible (the Flood, the Exodus, the resurrection, etc) have exactly the same amount of outside corroboration as Smith's little fairy tale. The Quran is the religious text of an Abrahamic religion, and like the Bible is a collection of works as opposed to a monolithic source. Referring to similar events as the Bible's Old Testament is unsurprising - if Islam and Christianity were biological populations, we would say that they both evolved from a common ancestor. But again, the question is why? Why does the Judeo-Christian belief set inspire faith? Your claim seems to be that the belief set is somehow unique...but Pastafarianism is rather unique and I don't suppose you'll worship His Holy Noodliness any time soon.My assertion is that your faith, and that of others, is a meme caused by confirmation bias in the basic belief set combined with the human propensity for pattern over-recognition, supported by social pressure and wishful thinking. I'm led to this conclusion by looking at the reasoning used by religious people to justify their faith in the absence of evidence (or the presence of contradictory evidence), and by my own experiences as a person of faith. The entire practice of Christian apologetics supports my assertion.So I agree that the Judeo-Christian belief set establishes a platform for faith: it causes a thought process by which all evidence is considered evidence of God (where both answered prayers and unanswered prayers are "God's will"), and it discourages questioning the beliefs with social pressure and threats of supernatural punishment as well as containing contingencies to restore faith when the beliefs are questioned. Again, uniqueness is not equivalent to veracity. I can find other unique belief systems that you would immediately dismiss. Further, omnipotence, divine intervention, miracles, inspiration, none of these are actually unique to the Judeo-Christian belief system in the first place.Your premise is false, and even were it true, your logic is flawed making your conclusion invalid.Again, you're demonstrating nothing more than circular reasoning - the beliefs themselves prove that the beliefs are true. I assert that your true cause for faith is recognizing patterns that don't exist, as in the Biblical prophesy example in my previous post, combined with a set of unfalsifiable beliefs containing a confirmation-bias where every result is taken as support of the preconceived conclusion, strengthened by wishful thinking and social pressure.