On Cognitive Dissonance And Crimethink

Ever since I came across the wikipedia entry on cognitive dissonance (I'd heard of the phrase a long time ago, but didn't investigate until about a year ago), I keep coming back to it every few months. It's an interesting topic regarding psychology and sociology. Here's a bit about the most famous example of cognitive dissonance:

A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's dissonance by criticizing it. - Wikipedia, Cognitive Dissonance

What's really interesting to me is regarding the role that self-concept plays in dissonance. Meaning one's sense of identity, or one's ego. We all see ourselves as basically good, obviously. We see ourselves as smart, capable and morally decent. These prejudices about our own inherently good nature are occasionally tested by reality. We find ourselves in situations where we freely make bad decisions, or find ourselves incapable of achieving goals that we presuppose are attainable. Reality creeps in and challenges our most basic assumptions about ourselves. In a such a conflict, something has to bend. Either we bend ourselves to accommodate new facts, or we bend the facts to accommodate our ego.

Neat. Anyway, where am I going with this?

Well, I've had a notion for quite a while that I haven't really been able to define, having to do with the proper, human way of thinking. Shortly before I started college, I had something of a brief, accidental out-of-body experience, while trying to get to sleep. For just a moment, I could see myself as if from the ceiling looking down. And I was free to judge myself, both physically and mentally, with all my emotional baggage, insecurities and teenage defensiveness. And it didn't bother me to do so, I felt no dissonance - again, just for a moment. I had a split second of total objective observation of myself.

It wasn't anything grandiose or spiritual, but it was useful and I believe that it had something to do with how I developed afterward. After that, especially during college, I became a lot more honest with myself about what I wanted, and why. It didn't feel self-deprecating at all, because these things that I criticised about myself (even my baser tendencies) weren't really at the core of my identity anymore. My mind had shifted in some way, and I wasn't exclusively centered in the part of me that held desire or judgements. Part of me was now centered in the part of me that objectively analyzes, and that allowed me to analyze myself from inside and out. I didn't need to justify or prove personal values or appetities, they simply were what they were. I could judge them, and reorient myself if I wanted to, but either way it didn't threaten my sense of identity.

In some way, I think this ties into the theory of cognitive dissonance. This is a weapon for fighting crimethink. What I want is to fully understand it so I can spread this special kind of perspective that I found. I don't think it has to do with eliminating dissonance completely. And I'm aware that the experience that I had may have just been the late onset of some child-to-adult development that everyone goes through. But I can think of at least a handful (more like dozens) of individuals I've run across that have their identity riding on things in their external life (I'm thinking of the line in Fight Club about "That wasn't just a bunch of stuff in my apartment, that was me" and "You're not the car you drive, you're not your job, you're not your fucking khakis"). This seems like a useful area of inquiry. What do you guys think?

On Skepticism

At a recent BBQ, a couple of guests described in length their experiences ghost hunting at nearby haunted buildings. Myself and another skeptic attempted to poke some holes in their airtight logic (e.g. "You just.. had to be there.. You could just FEEL it, you know?"). They seemed surprised and disappointed that we wouldn't simply take their word for it, and insisted that we couldn't offer an opinion until we spend an entire night stumbling in the dark of a moldy condemned building with no electricity or functioning indoor plumbing (I refuse to do so, so I must either be too scared or too proud to admit I'm wrong).

Among some of the points Team Skeptic brought up:
1. If ghosts really do exist, why can't they haunted a functional, contemporary household in good repair? After all, people have also died in such houses. Why is a spooky atmosphere a prerequisite to having a ghost encounter?
2. Unbelief in ghosts is not simply about "only believing what you can see around you". I can see no dinosaurs around me, but I know that they once existed because I can go to a museum and be surrounded by physical evidence. There are no museums full of ghosts.
3. Out of the infinite possibilities (both known and unknown) to explain the feeling of being lightly touched in a pitch black room, or hearing noise that sounds like a voice, etc, why must it be a ghost? A person goes looking for evidence to confirm an already-held unjustified conclusion (ghosts exist), and then conveniently uses any sensory perception that fits that prejudice, without giving the evidence it's due diligence exploration and research.

I've been dwelling on that third argument. Skepticism is not just about avoiding silly beliefs. It's also about avoiding prejudice, and I think that is frequently overlooked (especially by die hard believers). Belief (in something, anything) is often revered, or at least respected in our culture. Taking a skeptical stance, while seen as sensible, is also looked at as being a killjoy or fuddy-duddy.

Skeptics do not deny the evidence (even if it's personal and subjective), but they do question the conclusion if it is not supported by sufficient evidence. It has nothing to do with what they want to believe, it is the recognition that what they want is irrelevant, and prejudice and selectivity about a conclusion has no place in honest inquiry. The evidence (say, for ghosts) may actually indicate something. It may be centuries, or even never that we understand what it really is. But jumping to belief in the supernatural, for the sake of spicing up life is doing a disservice to the truth, and putting ones own needs before self honesty. To recognize that is not a weakness. It is, indeed, a virtue. And one that requires deliberate effort and discipline.

More On Early Christianity

On a somewhat related line of thought, I'd like to start with a letter from dear Pliny to the emperor Trajan:

I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent...

[In] the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome...

[Those] who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged.

And Trajan's reply:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.


Now, these words are probably the most frequently quoted in modern times for either Trajan or Pliny. Moreover, they're generally looked on as being a wonderful example of tolerance for Christians by the Roman authorities. Trajan was especially seen by early and medieval Christians as a friend of the faith. Pope Gregory I liked him so much he wanted to resurrect him so he could be baptized and go to heaven. Why? Simply because he didn't go to great effort to seek out Christians to punish?

I suspect that many misunderstand the context of the times, and believe that the Roman norm was Nero, crucifying Christians and using them as people-torches at night. From every source I've read thus far, Trajan's attitude was the norm. The vast majority of the time, Romans were clearly annoyed by Christians, but made little sustained, concerted effort to eradicate them. This kind of "tolerance" was very infrequently punctuated by an effort by authorities to push back against Christian growth in the cities. Such efforts had limited success and didn't last very long (persecution was a difficult, messy and decidedly unprofitable venture). Probably the most successful was Diocletian, who intimidated many into converting back to pagan worship. But Diocletian also quit while he was ahead, and failed to finish what he started.

So if Trajan is our model of tolerance in the context of that time, and Diocletian is the model of intolerance, than what of the later Christian persecution of pagans in the 4th and 5th centuries? Constantine started by heavily taxing pagan temples and giving the money to the church - OK, not so bad so far. He and his sons made efforts to stop the practice of animal sacrifice - still pretty tame. Augustine incited an anti-pagan mob in Carthage with these words:
"...[For] that all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!"
That mob left sixty non-Christians dead. Getting worse. Martin of Tours starts sacking pagan holy sites in Gaul and destroying pagan alters. After the sack of temples in Egypt and the destruction of the library of Alexandria, the leader of the Egyptian monks responsible for the act replied thusly to the victims who demanded back their sacred icons: "I peacefully removed your gods...there is no such thing as robbery for those who truly possess Christ".

Under the reigns of Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius, paganism is now made illegal. Not only were the temples shut, but private practices of lighting incense, hanging wreaths in honor of the gods, or burning candles were strictly forbidden. Bishops brought desert monks into the cities to assist in the destruction of temples. Christian mobs would taunt remaining non-Christians in the hope of causing a riot. A mob of Christians kidnap Hypatia of Alexandria (a well respected pagan philosopher) and brutally murder her,  hacking her to little bits. It's strongly suspected that Cyril, the Patriarch of that city was responsible for directing the mob. Pagan practices of divination of any kind are made illegal under pain of death. Not only that but Theodosius made non-enforcement of that law by local authorities a crime in itself. Laws are created by regional authorities as kind of hunting licenses for Christian Bishops and Monks, to pillage and loot known pagans and pagan properties.

These are just the highlights, the bits that I know of that happen to stand out in my memory. I'm really not even doing this topic justice with the brevity. Also, note that all of these events occurred within the span of a century.

Pagan persecution of Christianity was like a man occasionally swatting at flies, while usually trying in vain to ignore them. Trajan and Diocletian form the two extremes (I leave Nero out since it was a kind of bizarre fluke by a bizarre emperor, tied to questions of guilt over the Great Fire of Rome). Christian persecution of pagans, on the other hand, was swift, brutal and effective, with little or no thought expended over the "rights" of individuals. Paganism was gone from view almost everywhere (although it lived on underground in small, rural communities for centuries further before gradually fading away) within a century. Those who would not willingly convert were coerced, those who would not be coerced were killed.

Why then is the general opinion on this matter so deranged? Why are pagan authorities seen as vicious butchers while ancient Christians are seen as the meek, quietly waiting to be delivered and inherit the Earth?

The Spread of Early Christianity

I've been reading The Christianization Of The Roman Empire by Ramsey McMullen, which is a pretty well researched work. Although I've been going at a pretty slow pace, I think I've got a better handle on the subject, enough to summarize - poor though my skills may be - how the early Christian movement spread so quickly.

I'm not sure exactly where to begin, but I want to make something clear from the start. I'm going to try to cover the period from Christ's death, up until the point where Constantine takes the throne (306). It's an important distinction, because during and after the reign of Constantine, the Christians had a powerful patron in the Imperial house - except for the brief reign of Julian the Apostate, who attempted to revive the Greco-Roman pagan traditions - and as such, the incentives for an individual to convert were very persuasive.

When Constantine became Emperor, Christians amounted to about 1/10th of the population of the Roman world. By the end of the 4th century, they amounted to at least 1/2 of the population. By that point, the Church basically controlled the state and set about converting or killing the remaining pagans, and destroying every pagan temple still in existance. But that's not really what we're concerned with, is it? We want to know about the start, and how it took root in urban centers around the Mediterranean.

Miracles
Matt and I were debating about the role of moral examples in the spread of Christianity, but I've come to find that the moral question is largely irrelevant. What is relevant to the apostolic era and beyond were the demonstrations of miracles to crowds of onlookers. Christian evangelists would frequently exorcise demons from people, force pagan alters to break or disappear through the power of prayer, and even (at least in one case) cause an earthquake to shake a hostile pagan city.

Of course, I don't believe in miracles. But whether one believes or not isn't important from a historical perspective, anyway. People of the time, before and after Christ, believed in miracles, and indeed saw them fairly often. It would be outside the norm for someone of the time not to believe in miracles. Before John gloats, I should point out however that other cults, like Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus also demonstrated similar miracles, and it was a well known way of gaining converts.

Exclusivity
The most important thing to understand about the pagan world is how inclusive it was. Polytheism in the western world was very inclusive, and indeed tolerant of other forms of faith. Romans and Greeks interpreted the Gods of outsiders by their own names, and allowed their worship to continue. Romans only asked that an alter to Rome (or the current emperor) be built in whatever foreign city they were occupying, and that while the natives continued to kill oxes for Odin, they might occasionally burn a little incense for Rome, and pray for the health of the Emperor.

Naturally that was turned on it's head by Christianity. Christianity was exclusive, absolute and unambiguous. It wasn't enough to simply add Christ to the list of deities being worshipped. Conversion meant rejection of all other forms of divinity. A convert would not necessarily reject the existence of other Gods, but they would consider pagan Gods to be daemones, or minor demons, capable of miracles, but inherently corrupt and not worthy of worship.

This naturally had the effect of irritating the rest of the pagan world, who as a result saw Christians as anti-social and subversive to society. It also made the work of evangelizing Christ that much more dangerous. But most importantly, it gave a greater weight to the demonstration of miracles. In the mind of one who has just witnessed a miracle, not only was the Christian God real and powerful, but he demands obedience and exclusive worship. To ignore that was to invite damnation, and hellfire and brimstone were indeed thoroughly preached at the time. So, this added a sense of urgency and finality to the question.

Support/Incentives
Though the movement was very small, isolated (to urban areas), and limited in methods of outreach and advertisement, there were some incentives to being a part of a Christian community. Christians were typically of the lower, uneducated rungs of society (Pagan writer Celsus describes, in very unflattering words, the common practice of Christians recruiting Children and ignorant housewives in secretive conversations while adult males weren't looking) and often these were craftsmen or workers of a common trade. Often they would meet for common prayer and to receive the Eucharist in the backroom of a common workshop or place of business.

Although small, they would attempt to support each other when there was a need, and when possible would even open charitable endeavors for the general public. These would take the form of providing medical care for those in need, or food for the poor. There is a missionary aspect to these efforts, of course. It's not really all that different from what Churches to today to help the poor. Being a part of a "safety net" community like this was probably a draw for some. I doubt it alone was enough of a draw to make someone leave Paganism for Christianity, another reason in addition would be necessary (pressure from converted family members, perhaps, or some of the other motivations listed above).

I've written a lot, but definately not enough to do the topic justice. If you are still interested, I recommend reading the book.