Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological phenomena wherein, a person holding(either tacitly or occurently) two or more beliefs that are in tension experiences a kind of mental discomfort. In crude terms, we sometimes have beliefs that are mutually incompatible or in some real tension, and the result is a kind of internal struggle. There are four options when we have such beliefs. 1) Let go of or otherwise revise one belief, 2) let go of or otherwise revise the other belief, 3) abandon or otherwise revise both, or 4) adopt another belief which entails that there is actually no tension between the two. I assume that Gangadeanians like the rest of us face cognitive dissonance regularly and in this post I want to talk about one particular juncture at which I experienced an episode when I was a Gangadeanian. My intent is not necessarily to be critical in this post, but rather provide an exploration for those wanting to understand Gangadeanian psychology a little bit more. I can't promise what I have to say generalizes to all or even most Gangadeanians, but I'd be quite surprised if it didn't apply to at least many of his followers. What will result is a partial account of why people who are defriended from Gangadeanians due to philosophical/theological disagreements might feel the extent of hurt that they often report.
Early on in my career as a philosopher, when I was still on team-Gangadean, and I had only taken a few undergrad courses in philosophy (mostly from Anderson) there was a time where things seemed rather straightforward to me. By 'things' I mean philosophical issues or problems. As a result, when in the presence of other students and philosophers not affiliated with Gangadean, I was often dismissive of analytic philosophy as well as the "problems" they found to be vexing and thus worth discussing. I often thought to myself, "they just aren't using the proper method--i.e., rational presuppositionalism, those well-educated fools!" "If only they would think of the less basic in light of the more basic!" It wasn't until I entered grad school and had the opportunity to take a closer look at things, that I realized that I was seriously mistaken. It turns out philosophy really is that complicated. Deriving satisfying answers to fundamental problems is that tricky. Many philosophers are quite serious about answering them, but there's a reason why some foundational problems continue to be discussed at great length and this for thousands of years! Now I'm of the view that philosophy is not for the faint of heart or mind---you have to be okay with uncertainty.
I recall at one point, I finally began to entertain what I had to that point not really entertained seriously. Could I be wrong? Could Gangadean or Anderson, those that I had placed on the pedestal, actually be wrong? Maybe basic things are just not clear in the way that I had accepted. The cognitive dissonance arose in the following way. I believed Gangadean's doctrines concerning clarity. But I also noticed that people who appeared thoughtful, reflective, and otherwise quite rational didn't agree with me. Moreover, they raised problems for the Gangadeanian worldview (also my worldview at the time) that I didn't have ready answers for. I would often try to use the rhetoric that I was taught, although now that I reflect on it, I must report that it frequently felt insincere as if I were trying to trick my interlocutors to win the discussions and save face. So discomfort came to me in increasing degrees from one pair of beliefs in connection to a third. First, the clarity theses: i) basic things are clear to reason, and ii) one knows whatever is clear just in case one sincerely seeks. The clarity theses were in tension with my belief i) many philosophers that I knew didn't agree with me about the basic things (and so didn't know them), and ii) these philosophers were sincere, rational and intent on knowing the truth. This was the source of my cognitive dissonance. The two pairs were at odds with one another. I suspect, that if there are still any Gangadeanian lurkers at this blog (which I doubt) they can certainly relate to this feeling.
What is the Gangadeanian response to alleviate such dissonance? Well, they are so committed to clarity (indeed there would be no Gangadeanian worldview without it), that the clarity theses are beyond revision or denial. So what gives is the other pair of beliefs. They adopt the following narrative: anyone that doesn't agree about basic things contrary to appearances, doesn't actually want to know or seek sincerely. This eventually leads to their making pejorative remarks about the field of philosophy--that it's a bunch of really smart people that don't really want to know the truth, but pretend that they do or are self-deceived into thinking they do. This is the sort of narrative that they tell themselves about persons like me. Adopting such narratives enables them to resolve the cognitive dissonance while maintaing that basic things are clear to reason + anyone at anytime that wants to know and seeks to know, will know all that is clear.
Of course, there are lots of ways to resolve the dissonance--as I've said there are four general ways to resolve a tension between two views that one holds. But they opt for holding fast to one belief and denying the other. This approach is then further buttressed by a theological view about original sin and its noetic effects. "No one seeks not one", even if they appear to be seeking. So of course, we as Christians should expect people by in large to not seek to know and hence fail to know--so goes the thinking. (Yes, Gangadeanians make the exception of course--they manage to escape the scope of the quantifier "no one").
So in interacting with others outside their own, they have a fundamental view about the other. At least anybody that disagrees with them about foundational issues (and sometimes not so foundational) is someone that doesn't seek or at least doesn't seek consistently enough. The Gangadeanian commitment to the clarity theses are deep. Many of them probably feel like I did at one time before I decided to abandon ship. As if their entire lives would be in disarray, meaningless and the like if Gangadean were to turn out wrong. In fact, Anderson once in conversation told me that he wouldn't know anything at all, if the basic tenets of the church (including the clarity theses) turned out false. So as the Gangadeanians see it, there are significant psychological and practical costs associated the denial of clarity. We don't have to look far to see how they ever came under that spell. It's explicitly taught by Gangadean that without clarity all is meaningless (since meaning presupposes clarity)! It is no wonder that they adopt the narrative that any and all dissenters don't agree because they don't want to know the truth and thus don't seek sincerely. It is this background that you're going up against when you express disagreement with their foundational views.
Now if you've known any Gangadeanians previous to their becoming Gangadeanians, and try as you might, you just can't see eye-to-eye with them, or if you're like me and you once broke bread with them, before being kicked out and viewed as the enemy, then you know just what follows (for your relationships) from such a hardline position. Sometimes Gangadeanians act as if you can just make yourself believe what they believe (although I highly doubt they accept belief-voluntarism i.e., the view that believing is a matter of the will). Sometimes Gangadeanians forget that they are determinists and Calvinists and so believe that God has given them unmerited grace which was necessary for their seeking to know what is clear, and that God hasn't (on their view) extended this same grace to others which is what ultimately explains why people disagree with them. I suspect they haven't thought much about the appropriateness conditions of negative reactive attitudes, but there's a rather rich literature on that they might do well to consider.
Now as I've said, the commitment to the clarity theses and others is non-negotiable for them and this is what forces them to accept the view that anybody that disagrees with them about basic things doesn't actually want to know the truth. But to adopt such a view (which is radical in my eyes) in certain circumstances means overlooking lots of evidence to the contrary. When I reflect on my own experience, I find that reflecting on these considerations brings to the surface a plausible explanation for why people who are either kicked out of the church, or otherwise excluded by family members, friends (who are Gangadeanians) might feel hurt by members of the group.
I'm not particularly keen on sharing my own experience in this regard, but I think it might be instructive since I have particular insight into my own case. There were friends I had known for years who ultimately cut me out of their lives upon my exodus from the church and in keeping this here blog. Now it's quite likely that the justification they present to themselves for their choosing to sever our relationship is found in their adopting the position that I don't actually want to know the truth and as a result I've set up this blog to attack them, which is on their view likely to be the work of the devil. If I did want to know the truth, on their view, I would know and I certainly wouldn't keep a blog of this sort or continue to speak out against Gangadean. But to adopt such a position, they have to overlook or ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. And sometimes I wonder about that. Sometimes I wonder, if after years of close friendship, they didn't gather enough evidence to believe confidently that I am someone that wants to know the truth---that I work tirelessly (though of course, imperfectly) to know and that I care deeply about fundamental questions because I recognize how much they matter. After all, it's become my life's work. I'm certainly not in it for the "money" or "fame"!
Of course, you might wonder about some of the same things about me and my view of them. But our situations are far from symmetrical. The friendships I speak of, were ended entirely by the Gangadeanians. The purity of my motives constantly called into question and so little effort spent on trying to really understand my views. Of course, I have to adopt a narrative about how they, despite being good-natured and otherwise rational people, don't see what I take to be rather obvious truths (that Gangadeanism is gravely mistaken). However, I alleviate the cognitive dissonance in a different way and a way that I find far more plausible and far less uncharitable about the character of the others. I maintain that they are sincere in their pursuit of truth or at least no less sincere than most (nobody is perfect in this respect of course). I can maintain the evidence supporting this view which I gathered over the years of our friendships--I don't have to throw that out. But the reason they don't see the truth is that they are ill-informed and stuck in a seductive way of thinking that they can't see beyond. It's understandable. Philosophy is really difficult. It takes years of specialized training, just like anything else. And the people in power have a way of spinning sophistries, of indoctrinating persons with certain kinds of vulnerabilities and controlling them in subtle ways. It happened to me and I suspect under the right circumstances, it can happen to anyone.
What all of this suggests to me is a part of an explanation for why people who have either left the Gangadean fold and been unfriended by the group, or else people who have experienced strains on their relationships with Gangadeanians because of core disagreements, feel the extent of hurt that they feel. The Gangadeanians essentially have to adopt a view that you're fundamentally flawed. You don't care to know the truth and so you don't actually seek to know. You're in it for the lolz or for self-aggrandizement, or for some other nefarious purpose. This wipes away whatever evidence they have gathered to the contrary. Perhaps it tosses out years of loyal friendship. On their view, you're basically a terrible human being (at least on their notion of what it means to be human!).
