4 ms·

A term exists for such self serving and convenient thinking: cognitive dissonance. The religious are no different, they rail against how wrong science is, and

A term exists for such self serving and convenient thinking: cognitive dissonance. The religious are no different, they rail against how wrong science is, and yet at the same time have no problem using the fruits of scientific labor like air travel, the Internet or clean water. People just do what's most convenient for them at the time.

peterwwillis 13y ago
Cognitive dissonance actually refers to the excessive mental stress and discomfort suffered by holding two opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time. Since these people don't seem to be particularly discomforted by this, the term 'hypocrisy' might apply better.
- wpietri 13y ago
  I think it's legitimate to talk about cognitive dissonance here because it explains the behavior patterns. When I was a kid I hung around a farm; on the inside of the wooden fence was a wire that regularly got an electric pulse. After the first time it bit me, I spend a couple of weeks being very careful not to touch it again. Hypocrisy can happen in a variety of ways. But there's a particular sort of doublethink and denial that comes from avoiding cognitive dissonance.
  - peterwwillis 13y ago
    Ah, you're actually really close to understanding the correct principle here! You've just confused a couple of different ideas. First off, cognitive dissonance does not explain any behavior patterns other than those prompted by feeling distressed. If these people were exhibiting symptoms of depression, distress, confusion, etc, or were making their decisions under duress of emotion, you could classify it as cognitive dissonance. But the examples given don't paint the people as particularly distressed. Doublethink is actually almost the opposite of cognitive dissonance, and is the more correct term for the behavior mentioned. Doublethink is when there is absolutely no conflict in the mind about the two conflicting ideas being held at the same time. Denial is also a different idea, and probably not completely out of context for the individual's reasoning, but does not describe the behavior. Denial is when someone finds an idea so difficult to accept that they reject it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In this case the person's opinion might actually be weighed on various information that seems credible, and so denial might not be a factor at all. The reason I chose 'hypocrisy' to define this behavior is because it requires an act that is in direct opposition to the values one espouses. In this sense the major difference is that you don't have to hold two opposing views in your head (whether under distress - cognitive dissonance - or not - doublethink). You simply have to say you believe one thing, and do an act which is directly in opposition to that belief. You seem to be conflating all these different concepts into one giant over-reaching idea. This is probably not a good thing to do throughout life, not only because you're failing to communicate properly by misusing words, but you're actually simplifying a set of complex behaviors into one single idea to make it easier to comprehend. This leads to all kinds of cognitive bias and illogical conclusions.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      Do you find condescending to people gets them to take you more seriously? It has always had the opposite effect for me.
      - peterwwillis 13y ago
        Sorry if I was condescending, I didn't intend to be.
rolandukor 13y ago
> The religious are no different, they rail against how wrong science is, and yet at the same time have no problem using the fruits of scientific labor like air travel, the Internet or clean water. Tone it down or be more specific. You are making a very sweeping generalization. And do not worry, I am not going to get into an extended conversation on this.
- confluence 13y ago
  That is specific. You cannot believe in imaginary beings and so simultaneously claim that you also believe in science. Doing so just indicates that one is a complete hypocrite.
cgore 13y ago
The "science-hating religious person" is just a straw man for Dawkins and the like. Most religious people have no problem with science, and see no contradiction between the two. Many of them even are engineers, scientists, and doctors, often some of the most renowned of their fields. The groups who actually do see a contradiction typically aren't hypocritical at all about it, to the point of not getting blood transfusions even if it means their death, to use the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
- confluence 13y ago
  Religious thinking and science are contradictory thought models. Believe in both and you are a hypocrite. The fact that someone sees no problem doesn't mean there isn't one.

peterwwillis 13y ago

Cognitive dissonance actually refers to the excessive mental stress and discomfort suffered by holding two opposing ideas in one's mind at the same time. Since these people don't seem to be particularly discomforted by this, the term 'hypocrisy' might apply better.

wpietri 13y ago
I think it's legitimate to talk about cognitive dissonance here because it explains the behavior patterns. When I was a kid I hung around a farm; on the inside of the wooden fence was a wire that regularly got an electric pulse. After the first time it bit me, I spend a couple of weeks being very careful not to touch it again. Hypocrisy can happen in a variety of ways. But there's a particular sort of doublethink and denial that comes from avoiding cognitive dissonance.
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  Ah, you're actually really close to understanding the correct principle here! You've just confused a couple of different ideas. First off, cognitive dissonance does not explain any behavior patterns other than those prompted by feeling distressed. If these people were exhibiting symptoms of depression, distress, confusion, etc, or were making their decisions under duress of emotion, you could classify it as cognitive dissonance. But the examples given don't paint the people as particularly distressed. Doublethink is actually almost the opposite of cognitive dissonance, and is the more correct term for the behavior mentioned. Doublethink is when there is absolutely no conflict in the mind about the two conflicting ideas being held at the same time. Denial is also a different idea, and probably not completely out of context for the individual's reasoning, but does not describe the behavior. Denial is when someone finds an idea so difficult to accept that they reject it in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In this case the person's opinion might actually be weighed on various information that seems credible, and so denial might not be a factor at all. The reason I chose 'hypocrisy' to define this behavior is because it requires an act that is in direct opposition to the values one espouses. In this sense the major difference is that you don't have to hold two opposing views in your head (whether under distress - cognitive dissonance - or not - doublethink). You simply have to say you believe one thing, and do an act which is directly in opposition to that belief. You seem to be conflating all these different concepts into one giant over-reaching idea. This is probably not a good thing to do throughout life, not only because you're failing to communicate properly by misusing words, but you're actually simplifying a set of complex behaviors into one single idea to make it easier to comprehend. This leads to all kinds of cognitive bias and illogical conclusions.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    Do you find condescending to people gets them to take you more seriously? It has always had the opposite effect for me.
    - peterwwillis 13y ago
      Sorry if I was condescending, I didn't intend to be.

rolandukor 13y ago

> The religious are no different, they rail against how wrong science is, and yet at the same time have no problem using the fruits of scientific labor like air travel, the Internet or clean water. Tone it down or be more specific. You are making a very sweeping generalization. And do not worry, I am not going to get into an extended conversation on this.

confluence 13y ago
That is specific. You cannot believe in imaginary beings and so simultaneously claim that you also believe in science. Doing so just indicates that one is a complete hypocrite.

cgore 13y ago

The "science-hating religious person" is just a straw man for Dawkins and the like. Most religious people have no problem with science, and see no contradiction between the two. Many of them even are engineers, scientists, and doctors, often some of the most renowned of their fields. The groups who actually do see a contradiction typically aren't hypocritical at all about it, to the point of not getting blood transfusions even if it means their death, to use the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

confluence 13y ago
Religious thinking and science are contradictory thought models. Believe in both and you are a hypocrite. The fact that someone sees no problem doesn't mean there isn't one.