Cognitive Dissonance of the Religious Right (and Left) by Susan Caldwell

"If you have two propositions in conflict, it's human nature to disregard one of them."
Lionel Festinger

During the recent mid-term elections my husband and I were "discussing" our sometimes opposing views on American politics, with strong convictions and passion our most common topic is political party lines and which one aligns with our foundational faith- beliefs best. I tend to be a quick emotional responder (reactor) and he is a slow deep analytical thinker, which at times can feel like a disadvantage, I think to us both.

At one point my husband made this observation/comment in regard to how the two political parties see each other. He said, "The Democrats think the Republicans are stupid and the Republicans think the Democrats are wrong." And I am pretty sure we quickly went on to prove his statement true, because wrapped in my argument(s) I may have indicated something like, "Well, that's just stupid." To which he may have responded, "No, you're just wrong."

Which then got me to thinking about why do we defend our beliefs so adamantly? Is the reason an allegiance to a belief or perspective that one holds to be absolutely true? Or is it simply that the fear of looking stupid or being wrong drives one to remain opposed to any information that might possibly expose the fact that they may not have all the right answers or correct perspective? Then I thought, no one ever argues absolutes like gravity or the need for oxygen. These are simply not issues for discussion. Sure there have been those who have invented ways to defy gravity or to regulate the flow of oxygen...but these discoveries do not make one look stupid or wrong for believing oxygen and gravity to be staples of their daily life.

So now I am wondering if cognitive dissonance only occurs when non-absolute truths are challenged; even if at one time the non-absolutes were believed to be absolute. Although people claim to know absolute truth, I believe absolute truth can only be assigned to God alone because any or all of our learned knowledge is subject to fallibility. Like Galileo's discovering that the Earth was not the center of the universe, causing the "infallible" Church's interpretation of Holy Scripture to be wrong. Or how ignorant would we appear today if we supported the belief that one man had the right to enslave another? Yet there was a time in this country when that belief was so strongly held, a civil war was fought over it.

And then it hit me. What means will we go to in order to keep from having our non-absolute truths disproved? The Church brought those who opposed their beliefs before a court to be tried for heresy with death, imprisonment or banishment being the penalties imposed. Those who choose to hold tightly to ignorant beliefs, like the white "God fearing" men and women in the south in the 1960's who supported segregation, will be overcome with fear and ultimately driven by need to silence those who are challenging their beliefs. I have often wondered how humankind has survived considering the torture it has inflicted on those whom we need to oppress in order to keep our perceptions of truth in tact. Sadly to our discredit as humans, our response to cognitive dissonance has honed our dexterity to oppress or exploit others.

Festinger says that this psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance is as strong a human response as hunger and thirst. Which leads me to the conclusion that when one is experiencing conflicting information it is not simply that one does not want to know, it is that one believes their very life depends on not assimilating to it. The worst example of this is when a Mother chooses to live in an altered state of reality denying the truth that her children are being abused, thereby not protecting them.

I am not sure I can control when this human response mechanism kicks in, but I am thinking maybe I can choose to not hold on to as many non-absolutes. So, now I find myself asking the questions, "What absolutes do I hold?" "What absolute does my faith depend on?" If, 'perfect love casts out all fear', then holding to a belief in God should not result in my responding to conflicting information, discoveries or opinions with the fear of looking stupid or being wrong. More importantly to me though is this hope; that if I truly believe there is a God, I do not have to worry about defending his existence or any truths he has decided on. My faith-beliefs should fall into the category with oxygen and gravity. No need to fear, no need to argue, no need to prove their existence. Their own nature is their proof.

I wonder if the need for me to prove; my perspective, support the right (or left), have my candidate win, my party in control, my ideas, ideals or rights supported by the majority of voters will be less now that I understand cognitive dissonance? Probably not...
But maybe replacing my faith-based-belief on God himself and not on political views, biblical interpretations, actions, experiences or momentary culturally accepted doctrine or any other non-absolute truths my life will be a bit more congruent with the mercy of God.

"The standard by which we measure our obedience is therefore Jesus Christ himself; from Him we learn that brokenness, not success, is the normal path of faithfulness to the servanthood of God. This is not to glorify failure or some sort of heroic uselessness, but to claim, as a confession that can be only made in faith, that true "success" in Christian obedience is not to be measured by changing the world in a given direction with a given length of time, but by the congruence between our path and the triumph of Christ.
Every kind of brutal pragmatism has justified itself by the good results; so has every idealistic glorification of whatever anyone is currently doing to save the world. We must relearn the humility of measuring our obedience not by our claims to get something done, which really does not lie in our hands, but rather by its faithfulness to the word which God has spoken to man in the Man of his choice." John Howard Yoder