Poonis Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Is it possible to induce cognitive dissonance to aid apostasy? I've been working on something lately that I'm sure would irritate more than a few of the religious. I'm researching techniques that utilize cognitive dissonance to influence apostasy in the relgious. So far I have found that debating scripture does nothing towards this, but getting the believer to simply become aware of how their beliefs affect their livelyhood goes much farther. Why? Because the bible is at best a paperweight when it comes to personal world-views, but the psyche controls everything. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Is it possible to induce cognitive dissonance to aid apostasy? I've been working on something lately that I'm sure would irritate more than a few of the religious. I'm researching techniques that utilize cognitive dissonance to influence apostasy in the relgious. So far I have found that debating scripture does nothing towards this, but getting the believer to simply become aware of how their beliefs affect their livelyhood goes much farther. Why? Because the bible is at best a paperweight when it comes to personal world-views, but the psyche controls everything. Thoughts? Thoughts a-plenty. Cognitive dissonance happens all day every day. It's what we use to figure out problems, learn, etc. Definitely arguing scripture is pointless, as it is by its very nature interpretive. The only thing you do in debating scripture is argue one interpretation over another. Much too easy for someone to find their own interpretation the best one. It obviously is, because it's the one that makes sense to them. However, to me the bigger disconnect comes in facing their place in a modern world where education and science is wide-spread, and primitive tribal-like ideas of 6000 year old earths, literal ghosts and demons, etc is what cause's a huge conflict for people. It is much too easy to present huge volumes of unbiased, corroborated research that conflicts with the teachings of religious priests. That sets up a huge conflict in people. Those who become more irrational are doing so because of that conflict that they are presented with. Those who are open-minded will generally try to resolve the conflict through either abandoning their ideas, or they will modify those ideas to incorporate the new information, and thus resolve the conflict. That's how you get the evolution of religious ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thoughts a-plenty. Cognitive dissonance happens all day every day. It's what we use to figure out problems, learn, etc. Definitely arguing scripture is pointless, as it is by its very nature interpretive. The only thing you do in debating scripture is argue one interpretation over another. Much too easy for someone to find their own interpretation the best one. It obviously is, because it's the one that makes sense to them. Thats why I think truly aiding apostasy can only occur in the midst of cognitive dissonance. But since it happens all the time with everyone, I think the key is to find one and focus on it. This is where it becomes a gray area though; is this dissonanse exploited by questioning socratically? I've found that at the right place and time, asking "what will that do for you" can be world-view shattering (at least in my case). I'm trying to figure out how to, for lack of a better term, 'finnagle' the psyche of someone in the midst of a religious cognitive dissonanse episode. I suppose the first place to start is detecting when such an episod occurs. Hrm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thoughts a-plenty. Cognitive dissonance happens all day every day. It's what we use to figure out problems, learn, etc. Definitely arguing scripture is pointless, as it is by its very nature interpretive. The only thing you do in debating scripture is argue one interpretation over another. Much too easy for someone to find their own interpretation the best one. It obviously is, because it's the one that makes sense to them. Thats why I think truly aiding apostasy can only occur in the midst of cognitive dissonance. But since it happens all the time with everyone, I think the key is to find one and focus on it. This is where it becomes a gray area though; is this dissonanse exploited by questioning socratically? I've found that at the right place and time, asking "what will that do for you" can be world-view shattering (at least in my case). I'm trying to figure out how to, for lack of a better term, 'finnagle' the psyche of someone in the midst of a religious cognitive dissonanse episode. I suppose the first place to start is detecting when such an episod occurs. Hrm. I should clarify that I don't deliberately set out to get someone to abandon their beliefs.... unless.... they decide that they wish to point out to me that somehow my beliefs are wrong or that I am condemned by God for believing other than they do. At the point I see that they are doing that, then they are being anti-social in my opinion, and as being part of society with them I will confront their ideas as it affects me. There is where I will challenge them. I will generally look at how they think, and then address that area in a language they would understand (if I can understand that language myself). An analytical person I would appeal to reason, an emotional person I would appeal to their attitudes. In each case, pointing out the contrast of what I see as a more well suited response to the issues. They may or may not agree, but the ideas were communicated and that is how ideas grow. But again, I'm not trying to deconvert people, just share ideas or confront bad behavior as it affects me or the world I live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted February 1, 2007 Author Share Posted February 1, 2007 I should clarify that I don't deliberately set out to get someone to abandon their beliefs.... unless.... they decide that they wish to point out to me that somehow my beliefs are wrong or that I am condemned by God for believing other than they do. At the point I see that they are doing that, then they are being anti-social in my opinion, and as being part of society with them I will confront their ideas as it affects me. There is where I will challenge them. I will generally look at how they think, and then address that area in a language they would understand (if I can understand that language myself). An analytical person I would appeal to reason, an emotional person I would appeal to their attitudes. In each case, pointing out the contrast of what I see as a more well suited response to the issues. They may or may not agree, but the ideas were communicated and that is how ideas grow. But again, I'm not trying to deconvert people, just share ideas or confront bad behavior as it affects me or the world I live in. I seek to disrupt the ignorant blissfulness of christian faith solely to debase the influence of religion on the government that governs over me. In this, I am on the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 But again, I'm not trying to deconvert people, just share ideas or confront bad behavior as it affects me or the world I live in. I seek to disrupt the ignorant blissfulness of christian faith solely to debase the influence of religion on the government that governs over me. In this, I am on the defense. Well yes, in this I do the same thing because of what I qualified above "or the world I live in". So things like teaching Creationism as science in schools, that I will set out to disrupt. What I try to do is raise public awareness on the issue (in what little circles I do). It's not about destroying the faith of someone who believes peaceful there's a god out there who loves them, it's about challenging those who have declared war on culture and reason. Now they have cause to justify their beliefs, which of course they can't and I will point this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Yeah, I think that setting out to lay hold of anther person's mind should be preceeded by a significant amount of introspection and house cleaning first. The temptation to control another person is often times just too great. To be a benevolent teacher is one thing. To be a psychological tyrant is quite another. What you speak of Poonis strikes me as being too close to psychological warfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 Yeah, I think that setting out to lay hold of anther person's mind should be preceeded by a significant amount of introspection and house cleaning first. The temptation to control another person is often times just too great. To be a benevolent teacher is one thing. To be a psychological tyrant is quite another. What you speak of Poonis strikes me as being too close to psychological warfare. Not much different than religious indoctrination; I'm just looking to accomplish teh reverse by trying to find a way to effectively remove the garbage that religion originally instilled. Mind control is the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish. Instead of being controlled by their beliefs, my goal is to get them to become completely autonomous thinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Mind control is the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish. Instead of being controlled by their beliefs, my goal is to get them to become completely autonomous thinkers. Alright, then let us proceed under the assumption that your motives are pure. Does cognitive dissonance necessarily lead to apostacy? I read an article not too long ago by some psychologists (I need to do a better job with keeping up with sources) that concluded that the feeling of a unified self was an illusion. Maybe it's the case that cognitive dissonance is the norm rather than the exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 Mind control is the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish. Instead of being controlled by their beliefs, my goal is to get them to become completely autonomous thinkers. Alright, then let us proceed under the assumption that your motives are pure. Does cognitive dissonance necessarily lead to apostacy? I read an article not too long ago by some psychologists (I need to do a better job with keeping up with sources) that concluded that the feeling of a unified self was an illusion. Maybe it's the case that cognitive dissonance is the norm rather than the exception. cognitive dissonance does not necessarily lead to apostasy, this is why I'm researching ways in which to recognize when a dissonance is occuring (even if only in simple chat with a christian) and influence their thinking in which they must search for an answer within themselves because the bible or their church or whatnot does not already have the answer, or one that does not help them. I suspect that this is similar to what socrates was doing when he mentions to the court that the only advantage he has over his enemy is that he is aware of his own ignorance. Although, I am not certain and that is why I ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 IMO, if someone wants to contribute to the downfall of the elitist mentalities of the religous right, they must first eliminate their perceived punishment for abandoning it. End their convicted belief in a literal hell! If they don't believe that eternal punishment exists for daring to be open minded, then the clutches of fear might be releasing them to think more with reasoning. I would really like to know how this can be done. What might help is to understand what obsessive-compulsive need is this belief system fostering? Perhaps for the fundamentalist Christian, it is to be special? If fundamentalism feeds on the foundation that Christians are special, set aside as God's chosen people... what would be the internal shift if someone didn't want to be special? How would a fundamentalist Christian's outlook on eternal punishment be transformed if they just wanted to be equal to everyone else? I don't know if this equality concept could contribute to total apostacy, yet that doesn't seem to be the necessarily desired outcome from the discussion of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts