(November 11, 2013 at 12:39 pm)John V Wrote: The problem with such explanations is that they can also support opposite scenarios.
For instance, consider yourself. You believed. Then you read some things in the OT and judged god as unworthy. This sets up cognitive dissonance - if you continue to believe you end up in hell and don't want to consider that. So, you found reasons to discontinue belief.
Giving up one of two conflicting beliefs does resolve cognitive dissonance (although in your example, both beliefs are given up when the obvious solution is to keep believing in God and just stop believing in eternal hell. Universalism is a thing). However, someone discontinuing belief in something that they think is a danger to them is something I've never observed except in the imaginations of Christians trying to figure out atheists. Maybe because it's a very poor survival strategy. I'm not saying you don't have a point about different ways of resolving cognitive dissonance, just that your inability to put yourself in our heads has led you to a poor analogy.
(November 11, 2013 at 12:39 pm)John V Wrote: I'm not saying that's what actually happened. I'm just saying that broad concepts like cognitive dissonance can generate tales that go any which way, and so don't really have much value.
It is very broad and if there were nothing to corroborate it, would not be very convincing. However, there are numerous examples of what happens when prophecies fail or semi-divine figures perish. The prophecy actually took place, but 'in a spiritual way', or the prophecy will still happen, we just got the time wrong. Emperor Selassie lives and reigns over all of Creation. The Great Leader Comrade Kim il Sung is immortal! John Frum will return and bring the cargo once again. These examples are all within the last century. It's a (not the only) normal human response to having something you were utterly certain of and invested in turn out to be wrong, especially if you're willing to entertain 'alternative' ways of not being wrong.
So there's a little more to this argument than 'hey, cognitive dissonance!'
