There you will find:
"...Split-brain patients may sometimes confabulate a rational account of their behavior, if the true motivations cannot be reported since they may depend on processing in the linguistically inaccessible right side of the brain. ..."
Michael Gazzaniga did many interesting experiments demonstating this. I have read at least a dozen of his papers. I think Wiki article does not adequately suggest his more general conclusion about "normal" humans. I.e. we all seldom understand deeply why we do things but automatically, unconsciously and easily "confabulate" a reason we believe to be true. (It may actually be the main reason - I am not stating it is not. I am just noting that we produce one by confabulation which, if true, may be so only by chance.) Many of the things we do have entirley different reasons than the ones we believe, understand, and accept as the reasons. Some more valid reasons can be learned via psychological analysis, some are innate drives, some are just habbits, some are transformed from other behaviors (often more obvious when we consider what we "did" and why in the dream state), etc.
This confabulation (or invention of causes for things we observe happening) can be demonstrated in normal humans:
I do not rememer well the details of one psychological experiment that showed how common confabulation* is, but it went something like the following:
An array, perhaps three rows of four playing cards in each row, was displayed on a computer screen in each trial. The subject's task was to guess the " special card" to get small monetary reward (perhaps a penny) and could stop the series of trials when he/she had discovered the rule that made one card special in each display when they were "sure." If they did discover the correct rule they got a large reward, (like $1000 initially) but its value decreased the longer they played the game (like dropping at rate of $30/ minute) to discover it. As I recal, there was no rule - just occasionally the small reward was granted at random, but increasingly frequently as they played so their rule seemed to be being being confirmed eventually if they played long enough.
All of the subjects did found some rule. For example: "The suit of the last special card will not repeat, but the color will once and if prior special card was face card, then...." etc some very complicated rules were quiclky invented by the more intelligent players. Before telling if they had won the grand prize, they were of course asked about both their rule AND also how confident they were in it. All firmly believed their rule and expected to get the prize. (I think they were offered, and refused, a small, but certain sum, to test quantatively the strength of their beliefs in the true cause (the rule) their recent sting of correct guesses had confirmed for them.) I.e. we all do have faith in the beliefs we confabulate being true even when they are false.
----------------
*We all tend to believe there is a cause for things - if none is evident or not even existing, we unconsciously (and with great ease)confabulate one to believe in. This characteristic of humans is a great aid to organized religions.