Cognitive Contamination

I was listening to Dr. Albert Mohler’s podcast on my way to a district church meeting recently where Dr. Mohler was interviewing renowned sociologist Peter L. Berger. I have been interested in Dr. Berger’s concept on plausibility structures in religion for a good while now. But in this interview, they discussed a concept that Dr. Berger coined “cognitive contamination.” The concept is very simply. Berger explains:

“if people converse with each other over time, they begin to influence each other’s thinking. As such ‘contamination’ occurs, people find it more and more difficult to characterize the beliefs and values of the others as perverse, insane, or evil. Slowly but surely, the thought obtrudes that, maybe, these people have a point. With that thought, the previously taken-for-granted view of reality becomes shaky.”

I thought that to be a sharp insight. On a very basic level, if cognitive contamination is true, then pluralism can have a deadly effect on any belief system. Of course, Dr. Berger points out that in the history of religion, the actual process of cognitive contamination is known as “syncretism.”

Cognitive contamination can occur when we are forced to interact with other religions, which is not altogether bad. But it can also occur as a result of our exposure to changes in social practice. An example of this is the church’s views about divorce. While I believe there is biblical grounds for divorce in some specific situations (adultery and/or abandonment), the prominent pronouncement from Scriptures is that divorce is a sin and God hates it. Yet, most of us would be hard pressed to say we have heard those words from a pulpit in the last 50 years. Why? One reason is cognitive contamination. Divorce used to be viewed as not only a sin, but as a social evil. Divorce was rare. But with the creation of the no-fault divorce clause in 1973, the practice was not only validated in society, but accelerated in practice. Now that divorce has become a societal norm, our senses have been dulled as to its awfulness and God’s hatred of it. Now we hear people’s particular stories about their divorces and our sympathies are affected. Divorce hits our families and familial prejudices overtake us. We find ourselves thinking that we wouldn’t like to live with someone we didn’t love. We begin to judge break-ups on a more practical basis that takes for granted the reality of people’s unhappiness, individual rights, and freedoms. Scripture is marginalized and our reasoning becomes contaminated. Thus, our pulpits are silent concerning God’s hatred of divorce because more than half of our congregations have experienced it. We realize that if we spoke about it in biblical terms our ministries would be in jeopardy. Even our terminology has changed to reflect our sympathies. Divorce is no longer a sin, it is a problem or a tragedy. Consequently, generally speaking, our first line remedy for divorce is now therapy instead of repentance.

I’m not picking on divorced people. I want to reach out to them. I’m not even against counseling for those who have experienced divorce. But this issue does provide a poignant example of cognitive contamination. Cognitive contamination sets the stage for individual choice to conveniently, yet passively push truth to the sideline.

Through pluralism, we are presented with myriad opinions that are deemed real and valid in other belief systems which can challenge our own beliefs in unexpected ways. Through personal choice we consequently entertain how these ideas/actions could be worked into our realities. And, before you know it, we have compromised.

I am not against examining other systems of belief. As Christians, we must be aware of opposing systems of belief. I also think that we should carefully examine cultural behaviors and the roots and implications on society. As kingdom pilgrims we are obligated to come to grapple with the world around us. But we must do so with the utmost personal discipline and divine guidance. Truth cannot be reduced to a choice. Ideas are not equal. Ultimately, Scripture itself will be truth’s best defense. Yet, if we are to be people of truth or even apologists, we must be aware that the sentimentality of raw individualism is a mark of depravity. We must take into account that our thinking can be contaminated in very practical and peculiar ways and then validated by our own depraved wills. We must beware of cognitive contamination.