Humans crave belonging. We find comfort in groups that validate our identity, beliefs, and experiences. But with that comfort comes a downside: we start dividing the world into "us" and "them." Psychologists call this in-group/out-group bias, and it shows up almost everywhere, from sports teams and political parties to nations and religions.
In religious communities, this bias carries a moral weight. It’s not just “us vs. them.” It becomes “righteous vs. deceived.”
This tribal thinking isn’t just about social division. It often leads to thinking errors that distort how people view others, and even themselves.
Here are a few examples that show up regularly in religious in-groups:
1. “They left the church because they were offended.”
Thinking error: Attribution bias
When someone leaves a faith, members of the group often assume it’s due to a personal flaw such as pride, sin, or laziness. Rarely is it assumed that the person had good reasons or honest doubts. This error allows the group to protect its narrative by framing dissent as weakness rather than reflection. It's easier to dismiss someone as bitter than to consider that they might be right.
2. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Thinking error: Black-and-white thinking
This oversimplified logic divides the world into faithful and fallen, saved and lost, good and evil. It leaves no room for nuance. Someone who asks difficult questions or seeks understanding outside the group isn’t exploring, they're rebelling. But the real world is messy. People leave their faith for many reasons. Not all of them are hostile. Not all of them are final.
3. “Our group is loving. The outside world is cold and selfish.”
Thinking error: Confirmation bias
People inside a group tend to highlight stories that affirm their view and ignore the ones that don’t. If someone inside the faith is kind, it’s because of the truth. If someone outside is kind, it’s an exception. This thinking filters reality to preserve a flattering self-image, even if it means ignoring obvious counterexamples.
4. “Nobody outside the Church is truly happy.”
Thinking error: Emotional reasoning
This claim often comes from a place of fear or loyalty. It’s based not on evidence, but on the assumption that joy is only possible within the group. Yet people thrive, find peace, and build strong communities outside of religious systems all the time. Emotional reasoning says, “I feel uneasy about leaving, so it must be wrong,” instead of asking why that feeling exists in the first place.
5. “We’re being persecuted because we have the truth.”
Thinking error: Self-sealing logic
Any criticism becomes proof that the group is right. This makes the belief system immune to outside input. If someone challenges the group, it’s not a sign to reflect, it’s a sign the group must be on the right track. This makes it nearly impossible to distinguish between legitimate concern and actual persecution.
6. “Everyone else is blinded by the world.”
Thinking error: Illusory superiority
This mindset assumes that those inside the group see clearly, while everyone else is deceived. It creates a false sense of intellectual and moral superiority. Ironically, it blinds people to their own biases by attributing all error to the out-group. It leads to isolation, arrogance, and a resistance to learning from others.
Religious communities are often built around beautiful ideals of love, truth, service, and humility. But the psychology of belonging can twist those ideals into something rigid and defensive. In-groups tend to protect their image at the expense of honest conversation. And out-groups become caricatures, not people.
__________
Now What?
Understanding these thinking errors doesn’t mean you need to abandon your community. It doesn't mean rejecting everything you've believed or cutting ties with people you care about. What it does mean is learning to step back and take an honest look at how your group, and you personally, see the people outside of it.
Are outsiders viewed with curiosity or suspicion? Are their questions welcomed or dismissed? Are you taught to believe they’re genuinely mistaken, or are they painted as morally corrupt, dangerous, or less intelligent? And when someone leaves the group, is the impulse to reach out and understand, or to step away and preserve the boundary?
It’s uncomfortable to ask these things, especially if you’ve built your identity around a group that claims special truth. But healthy communities can handle self-reflection. In fact, they need it. A group that discourages self-awareness will often drift toward rigidity and fear. A group that punishes dissent will eventually lose its ability to grow.
The goal is not to erase group identity. It is to make sure that identity does not come at the cost of seeing others clearly. The moment we stop listening to those outside the circle, we start shrinking our world. And we start shrinking ourselves.
