Cognitive Dissonance & Cognitive Bias

[Anomalocaris]

No it's not, cognitive dissonance is holding two contradictory ideas to be true simultaneously.

Rayaan's belief in Allah despite no epistemic justification is caused by biases.

This bias can exist in one living in the 21st century and somewhat conversant in general state of secular knowledge and secular global culture only through cognitive dissonance.

I would argue if there wasn't dissonance, any behavior can't be called bias.

[theVOID]

Cognitive biases and cognitive dissonance simply is not the same thing.

Pleasure, believing because it feels good, is a common cognitive bias that has nothing what-so-ever do to with holding two contradictory positions as true at the same time, thus it simply is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance can't even be considered a bias or a subset of cognitive bias in the majority of cases, it is considered by some to be a theoretical cause of some cognitive bias but this is not a very popular idea amongst rationalists or psychologists, that's fairly understandable, holding two contradictory positions as true simultaneously is not so much a bias as it is a mental error.

You could consider cognitive dissonance to be caused by a cognitive bias in some circumstances, such as fr0d0's belief that God is both 100% mortal and immortal, a striking example of cognitive dissonance that is caused by his cognitive biases.

I am personally of the opinion that CD is caused by CBs, rather than the other way around. CD is not present in most CBs however.

[Anomalocaris]

I would argue that to hold certain biases while also in possession of information that would contradict the bias is dissonance. Granted the implication of the contradicting information might be ignored or not perceived, but dissonance does not demand the full implication of each of the two contradictory ideas actually be completely thought through and reconciliation attempted, only that such contradictory ideas are held when it is reasonable to expect the irreconciliable contradiction to be appearent.

[theVOID]

There is one seemingly fatal flaw in that interpretation, you are placing the biases and information at the same level in the hierarchy, more accurately the interpretation of the evidence comes after the biases. What may in fact be information to contradict the biases cannot be seen as CD if the biased interpretation of the information is consistent with the bias, the person in this circumstance does not hold two things to be true simultaneously or where convenient, but has one conclusion from a true fact interpreted through a biased model.

For instance, a woman may believe that her husband is not cheating despite this being false, but her bias to believe things that feel comfortable over what she has epistemic reason to believe causes her not to have CD, but to have a single conclusion that is false because of her biases.

Here an outside observer without her biases will notice the contradiction, but it cannot be said that she is suffering from CD.