It is a worldwide problem to let the destructive cult believers detached from the destructive cult. The most difficult point is that it is difficult to change the destructive cult belief. The reason why the destructi...It is a worldwide problem to let the destructive cult believers detached from the destructive cult. The most difficult point is that it is difficult to change the destructive cult belief. The reason why the destructive cult faith is difficult to change is because that the destructive cults embezzled the basic concepts and doctrines of many legitimate religions in the construction of the destructive cult faith, which make the destructive cults and religious beliefs have many similarities in psychology, including the tenacity and stability of faith. The believers tend to believe it as a orthodox legitimate religion. The article points out the similarity that makes destructive cult beliefs hard to change and lists the ways to identify heretical beliefs.展开更多
That we shape our beliefs to align with our actions should be of interest within philosophy of religion and philosophy generally. Cognitive dissonance, a psychological state in which an individual＇s beliefs and actio...That we shape our beliefs to align with our actions should be of interest within philosophy of religion and philosophy generally. Cognitive dissonance, a psychological state in which an individual＇s beliefs and actions do not conform with each other, presents just such a situation. The idea that cognitive dissonance, by strict evidentialist standards, compromises our epistemic integrity since cognitive dissonance causes us to hold beliefs for which we do not have evidence, recalls the exchange between William Clifford and William James in which they discuss evidentialism, the idea that we should hold no beliefs for which we do not have evidence. In this paper I draw upon extant published research concerning cognitive dissonance theory and religion. I also survey the Clifford-James debate, applying considerations from their exchange to cognitive dissonance and （religious） belief. I conclude by showing how cognitive dissonance can have ambiguous results as concerns the justification of beliefs and that philosophy could benefit from attending to factors impacting empirical aspects of belief formation such as cognitive dissonance.展开更多
文摘It is a worldwide problem to let the destructive cult believers detached from the destructive cult. The most difficult point is that it is difficult to change the destructive cult belief. The reason why the destructive cult faith is difficult to change is because that the destructive cults embezzled the basic concepts and doctrines of many legitimate religions in the construction of the destructive cult faith, which make the destructive cults and religious beliefs have many similarities in psychology, including the tenacity and stability of faith. The believers tend to believe it as a orthodox legitimate religion. The article points out the similarity that makes destructive cult beliefs hard to change and lists the ways to identify heretical beliefs.
文摘That we shape our beliefs to align with our actions should be of interest within philosophy of religion and philosophy generally. Cognitive dissonance, a psychological state in which an individual＇s beliefs and actions do not conform with each other, presents just such a situation. The idea that cognitive dissonance, by strict evidentialist standards, compromises our epistemic integrity since cognitive dissonance causes us to hold beliefs for which we do not have evidence, recalls the exchange between William Clifford and William James in which they discuss evidentialism, the idea that we should hold no beliefs for which we do not have evidence. In this paper I draw upon extant published research concerning cognitive dissonance theory and religion. I also survey the Clifford-James debate, applying considerations from their exchange to cognitive dissonance and （religious） belief. I conclude by showing how cognitive dissonance can have ambiguous results as concerns the justification of beliefs and that philosophy could benefit from attending to factors impacting empirical aspects of belief formation such as cognitive dissonance.
