belief and/or information that brings the new evidence into question are the
quickest methods to eliminate their cognitive dissonance.20
People simply become increasingly sure of their decisions after they have
made them by rationalizing their choice of alternatives, which serves to reduce
the cognitive dissonance produced by foregoing the good features of the
unchosen alternative and accepting the bad features of the chosen alternative.21
When it comes to religion, a believer will defend his faith and attack the
alternatives in part simply because he has already rendered a decision on the
matter. Furthermore-and this is where the strength of the motivation kicks into
overdrive-Petty and Cacioppo explain that the effects of cognitive dissonance
increase as the positions between the two beliefs diverge and the perceived
importance of establishing a position grows.22 Could any two positions be in
sharper contrast than the existence and nonexistence of God? Could any
dilemma be more important to the Christian than whether or not God exists? It
naturally follows that questions on the issue of God's existence provoke the most
cognitive dissonance within those who are deeply involved in the issue. As this
debate generates the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance, it naturally
follows that people are increasingly willing to accept explanations that alleviate
the uncomfortable feelings and are decreasingly willing to consider
disconfirming arguments. As the uneasiness becomes more powerful, people
become more willing to surrender to whatever arguments are offered-just as
when hunger becomes more powerful, people become more willing to eat
whatever food is available. This will subsequently lead to accepting highly
illogical justifications for maintaining highly important beliefs.
A troubled Christian might not peruse, comprehend, or even read an entire
argument offered in defense of his belief, but the mere fact that a possible
answer exists satisfies him that there is a reasonable answer to the skeptical
objection. Never mind the fact that anyone can cite an authority who agrees with
a particular position, especially when it comes to interpreting religion. Due to an
innate bias to confirm what we already believe, the authority's position is not
going to be scrutinized or tested against a rebuttal. The Christian is interested in
feeling comfortable with his beliefs, not in dispassionately evaluating them.
People want to feel reassured that they are correct in their beliefs, especially
when there is a lot of emotion, personality, history, and identity at stake. If the
Christian were genuinely interested in the truth, he would analyze the argument
critically and thoroughly to see if it adequately addressed the points of the
skeptical objection. But he is not questioning; he is defending.
There have been several prominent cases in which religious followers have
manufactured outlandish explanations to relieve their cognitive dissonance.
Members of a Southwestern United States evangelical cult who retreated into a
bomb shelter to avoid a predicted imminent nuclear apocalypse went on to
believe, after it didn't occur, that it did not take place because of their prayers!23
Members of the Keech cult, who were to be taken to the planet Clarion to avoid
a global flood, went on to believe afterward, when it didn't happen, that aliens
told their leader it was prevented by their faith.24 Mormons believe Joseph
Smith's unwillingness to retranslate the lost portions of the Book of Mormon was
forbidden by God, even though it's crystal clear to the rest of us that Smith just
couldn't remember verbatim what he had improvised and dictated. Christians
believe that Jesus' failed prophecies of his return in his very near future aren't
what they truly appear to be-failed predictions-as Loftus shows in chapter 12 of
this book. These kinds of post hoc rationalistic justifications relieve the
uncomfortable dissonance generated after external elements showed the facts
were inconsistent with their beliefs.
In addition to cognitive dissonance theory, there are two complementary
theories that help explain the reason why people provide illogical defenses for
their beliefs. Impression management theory suggests that people increasingly
stick by their decisions because consistency leads to social reward and
inconsistency leads to social punishment.25 Psychological reactance theory
suggests that people increasingly stick by their decisions when others threaten
their freedom to express their ideas.26 It is my opinion that limited persecution
in Rome during the infant years of Christianity may have dramatically increased
its popularity. It's not difficult to imagine how people would become more
dedicated to and firm in their beliefs when faced with opposition, especially
when the opposition pushes a sharp reversal of current conditions.'? People
within the threatened group respond by dropping their differences to unite for a
common cause, while people outside the group desire what the authorities
forbade. There have been several historical instances in which the abolishment
of certain products, services, and rights has led to an increase in the desire for
those products, services, and rights.28
When religious believers are willing to admit that people often believe what they
are raised to believe and that people are often incapable of rational thinking due
to the effects of cognitive dissonance, they will often fall back to utilizing the
arguments from experts who agree with them. However, if you wanted safety
information on a used car, would it be wiser to trust the word of a used car
salesperson or the findings of a consumer report? Similarly, if you wanted to
obtain information on the historicity and veracity of Islam, would you ask only
an Islamic scholar who has been taught about Islamic sanctity since childhood,
or would you also ask a secular scholar with no emotional investment in Islam?
Would you not also do the same for Hinduism, Mormonism, Buddhism, and so
on? If you utilize the same reasoning and choose the unbiased scholar to help
evaluate that position, as you very well should, why make an exception only for
Christianity? People who study a concept in which they have no emotional
investment are probably going to offer more reliable conclusions than those who
want the concept to yield a specific result.
Scholars who begin with no emotional investment in Christianity probably
present the most unbiased conclusions about it simply because they are more
open during their studies to accept evidence that contradicts their tentative
conclusions. Just as the used car salesperson will be hesitant to acknowledge and
relay information that is damaging to the quality of his vehicles, the Christian
scholar will be hesitant to acknowledge and relay information that is damaging
to the veracity of his religion. We have no reason to think that belief in
Christianity provides a special insight into the veracity of it, because every
religion can make a parallel claim. The opinions of individuals with emotional
involvement, personal attachments, or vested interests in the outcome of a
debatable issue are less
likely to change when confronted with new information
because people have an innate inclination to seek evidence that confirms their
preestablished beliefs and to ignore evidence that will not. Psychologists call this
confirmation bias. We often do not weigh the facts before making judgments, but
rather we believe in things based on our predispositions and influences. We then
maintain these beliefs by ignoring and rationalizing away evidence that
contradicts our preexisting conclusions. We believe in things for reasons other
than logical reasoning and empirical evidence.
When subjects are given the task of solving a problem, most will immediately
form a hypothesis and only look for examples to confirm it. They do not seek
evidence to disprove the hypothesis, and they are very slow to change the
hypothesis even when it is obviously wrong. Subjects also adopt overly simple
hypotheses or strategies for solutions if the information is too complex, and form
hypotheses about coincidental relationships they observe if there is no true
solution.29 By adopting these overly simple hypotheses and strategies for
complex issues, individuals gain immediate gratification. Subjects will then
ignore, distort, and eventually forget evidence for theories that they do not
prefer. As the subjects spend more time focusing on internally justifying their
beliefs, the confidence in their beliefs greatly increases.30
Psychologists Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland have demonstrated that a
person's level of emotional involvement with an issue has an enormous impact
on how new evidence is interpreted.31 Involved persons have beliefs with
greater specificity and therefore have larger latitudes of rejection for evidence
that does not fit with those beliefs. People with a high involvement are more
resistant to contrary persuasion than less involved persons because any given
message has a greater probability of falling into the rejection region.
Psychologist Drew Westen was among those who empirically demonstrated,
using MRI scanning, that people who were strongly loyal to one candidate in
presidential elections did not use areas of the brain associated with reasoning to
resolve contradictory statements made by their candidate. The supporters instead
relied upon regions of the brain associated with emotion to justify their personal
allegiances.32 I could cite numerous similar studies that demonstrate irrational
behavior from highly involved individuals, but this is sufficient to establish my
point that people shun dispassionate critical thought when justifying their most
important beliefs and personal values.
Our analysis of emotionally involved people should lead us to an important
question in desperate need of an answer. What good is a biblical scholar who
refuses to consider that his point of view may simply be wrong? If past research
tells us there are three scientific procedures capable of yielding a cure for a
hypothetical disease, would we ever trust a scientist who was indoctrinated since
childhood to believe that only one of those three procedures could produce a
cure? Should we honestly believe that a biblical apologist who began with the
notion of an inspired Bible would readily consider the possibility that his holy
book is fundamentally flawed? Many of the top Christian apologists even admit
that when the data conflicts with the text, we should trust the text. Prominent
apologist William Lane Craig declares, "[S]hould a conflict arise between the
witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and
beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take
precedence over the latter, not vice versa."33 One of the most widely touted
Young Earth Creationist Web sites, Answersln Genesis.org, even offers this in
their statement of faith: "No apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
Scriptural record."34 What's the point in listening to people like this? Such is the
problem with all religious apologists, regardless of the specific belief. They will
begin by presuming certain premises are true and mold explanations to patch the
apparent problems, no matter how insulting the explanations are to common
sense. This is how religions thrive in the age of scrutiny and reason. Apologists
will find a "resolution" to every objection. No skeptical author can offer
anything that Christian apologists think they cannot answer. After all, God wrote
it, so it must be true-even if it violates science and common sense. Misguided
believers often accomplish this intellectually dishonest defense by citing one of
these biblical authorities who have also been indoctrinated, probably to an even
greater degree.
The focus we need to place on apologetic defenses is the likelihood of the
offered explanations and how an unbiased, dispassionate individual would rule
on these explanations. Is the apologetic suggestion a likely solution to the
problem, or is it a way of maintaining predetermined beliefs? Since most staunch
Bible defenders have already declared that nothing is going to change their
minds (and the solutions to presented biblical complications often reflect this
disposition), we must be highly suspicious of the intellectual honesty put forth
toward apologetic solutions. After all, there are even apologists for contradictory
schools of thought within Christianity itself. How can two groups of people
consistently use two contradictory avenues of thought yet consistently arrive at
the same answer, unless the conclusion itself consistently preceded the
explanation? A dispassionate outlook is an indispensable necessity when in
search of the truth. Religious scholars who began as religious believers lack this
critical component. The practice of religion clouds judgment; understanding of
religion does not.
People who have an interest in pursuing a career in Christianity are
undoubtedly those who have already been indoctrinated with the importance of
it. If they believe in Christianity ardently enough to pursue a career from it, they
are unquestionably more likely to interpret evidence so that it is favorable to
their preconceived notions. So it should come as no surprise that the vast
majority of experts in any religion believe in the very religion that they study. A
majority of experts in the history of the ancient Near East will defend positions
that are beneficial to Christianity precisely because they were born in a Christian
society. The majority of those who will back the Qur'an were born in an Islamic
society. The majority of those who will back the Torah were born in a Jewish
society. The opinions of these authorities, who began with a certain conclusion
instead of analyzing the evidence to reach that conclusion, cannot be trusted
merely because they are authorities. Conclusions based upon evidence are
important. Conclusions based upon evidence that has been interpreted to support
an a priori assumption are not. For these reasons, I put little stock in the opinions
of people who began studying Christianity years after they settled on the
existence of a talking donkey.
<
br /> If an intelligent, rational group of people who were never exposed to the idea
of religion were asked to become experts in the history of the ancient Near East,
the unanimous consensus of the group would be that the Bible is bunk. They
would reach this conclusion for two reasons: there is absolutely nothing in the
book that would impress critically thinking dispassionate outsiders, and they
would not have been exposed to the centuries of aura and mystique that society
has placed on the Bible. To them, the Bible would not be a guide that billions
have used for worship; it would be just another book in the mythology section of
the library.
Are there some who are more likely than others to leave the comfortable
confines of religious thought? Petty and Cacioppo point out that people with low
self-esteem are more likely to accept messages that confirm an initial viewpoint,
and less likely to be persuaded away from it.3' The very foundation of
Christianity is built upon the suggestion that we are insignificant creatures
compared to the creator of the universe and that it is not possible to carry out a
meaningful existence without accepting the biblical belief system.36 However,
once we accept the biblical teachings (and only after doing so), we become
worthy of God's gift of eternal life. Such ideas are no doubt appealing to those
with little or no self-esteem, but they carry less weight with someone confident
of his own abilities and intelligence. Speaking of which, as Paul Bell of Mensa
reports, "of 43 studies carried out since 1927, on the relationship between
religious belief and one's intelligence or educational level, all but four found an
inverse connection," and even of those four none indicated anything to the
contrary. In other words, the higher your intelligence or educational level, the
less likely you are to be religious.37 Intelligence and educational achievement is
therefore another factor affecting who will find religious belief unpersuasive.
Psychologist Frank Sulloway has shown that people with open minds also
compose one group less likely to be religious.38 This conclusion might seem
counterintuitive, especially considering how mystical ideas are commonly
purported to reveal themselves to those with "open minds," but the results make
sense upon further reflection. Skeptics have their positions but are willing to
consider other viewpoints; the religious are indoctrinated not to seriously
question their beliefs. It does not take a willfully open mind to accept the
existence of God because it is essentially the default position in our culture. It
does take an open mind, however, to consider the possibility that one's most
sacred beliefs might be false.
While it's true there are still plenty of highly intelligent people who are
religious, we should ask ourselves why this is so. The best answer, in my
opinion, comes from Shermer, within the very argument that he became famous
for coining: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at
defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons."39 Believing in
otherwise absurd stories simply because they are part of a religion bestowed
upon you obviously qualifies as believing in something for "non-smart reasons."
The intellectual meltdown arrives from gifted people inventing extremely clever
(but equally absurd) reasons why they think their beliefs are correct. Speaking
from personal experience, I can say that even in the confines of solidarity, I
could not be realistic about my former beliefs for one key reason: It is never easy
to be honest with yourself about the Bible when a mind-reading god is always
present. Simply thinking that God did something wrong might be as
Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion Page 9