Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

I've no doubt that there were many talented people who wrote historical accounts in the Bible and who also portrayed human psychology very accurately. But anyone could tell a true story and a fictional story side-by-side, or mix them together. All successful magicians or con artists will show you a bit of honesty to gain your trust.

You didnt really address the point i was making at all.My point is simple. Why is it universally accepted that Shakespere wrote 'romeo and juliette'?We are living hundreds of years after the fact, and there is not one person alive today who is able to corroborate that 'fact' for us....yet, like the rest of us, im sure you accept that he wrote it. So what makes you accept that he wrote it? Likely it is the 'historical evidence' of the writing.Its for this same reason that a christians accepts the writings of the bible as originating with God. Even though there are no living people who witnessed the writings alive to today to corroborate for us, its the historical evidence that convinces us.Ps.
This is the only similarity between the bible and romeo and juliette: Both are accepted as coming from a particular source even though there is no one alive who can corroborate that for us.

no, it causes them to re-examine what they think they know about Godeg. the six days of creation. Some reasoned that the evidence disproves the earth coming together in 6 literal days and researched more diligently until they discovered that the original hebrew word could mean any length of time. This is why there are some christians who do not accept the 6 literal days of creation.cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

eg. the six days of creation. Some reasoned that the evidence disproves the earth coming together in 6 literal days and researched more diligently until they discovered that the original hebrew word could mean any length of time. This is why there are some christians who do not accept the 6 literal days of creation.

---

That's rationalizing. Trying to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation. How the story is written conflicts with what they know of how long it takes things to happen. They're trying to make the story fit their evidence instead of accepting that it is a story.Why the need for an old story to fit with current evidence?
If it is just 6 literal days, why or how does that affect one's beliefs?
If it doesn't affect one's beliefs, then why rationalize?Edited by purpledawn, : Word changeEdited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

One would hope this is the case. Alas......this rarely seems to be the case. Re-interpreting to fit the indisputable facts after a great deal of faith based resistence. And the ones that still insist on this? How do they fit the contradictory evidence into their thinking? Or do they just deny evidence? Arguably it should have more to do with it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

its about understanding what is written and if adapting our beliefs to what is written is rationalisation, then bring it on.Genesis was originally interpreted by someone who did not fully understand ancient hebrew. But its important that our faith be based on accurate knowlege otherwise how can we explain it logically to others?Imagine trying to explain a legal document in a court of law if you dont understand legal terminology. You are bound to get thing wrong. First understand what the terminology means, then you can logically explain it and come to accurate knowledge. Its the same with the bible. Understanding Hebrew is paramount to coming to an accurate knowledge of it. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

do not scientists re-interpret their research when new evidence comes to light?why can't those who study the bible do the same? I dont know for sure. I've debated this point with many who continue to believe in the 6 literal days and they do ignore the meaning of the hebrew word. Personally i think they have an attachment to their particular church and so refuse to accept that their church could be wrong. Perhaps they simply dont care...i really dont know the answer to this.

It is not universally accepted. It is a subject of much debate.
Shakespeare authorship question - Wikipedia
Shakespeare Authorship Debate at AbsoluteShakespeare.com
Shakespeare Resource Center - Page not FoundDo a google search for "shakespeare authorship" (without the quotes) for more links on the topic.

We have way more evidence that Shakespeare was the author of these works than Luke being the author of the Gospel of Luke."Support for William Shakespeare as author rests on two main pillars of evidence: testimony by his fellow actors, and by his fellow playwright Ben Jonson in the First Folio, and the inscription on Shakespeare's grave monument in Stratford.[17] Title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and official recordsthe type of evidence used by literary historians that Stratfordians believe is lacking for any other alternative candidateare also cited to support the mainstream view.[a][18] Despite this, interest in the authorship debate continues to grow, particularly among independent scholars, theatre professionals and a small minority of academics.[19]"
sourceBut even this amount of evidence, more than we have for the authorship of the Bible, is not enough to make it a fact.Also, the importance of Shakespeare's plays and poems have nothing to do with the author. They could have been written by a group of 20 unknown authors and still carry the same importance. Even more, the importance of Shakespeare's plays have nothing to do with their historical accuracy. They are fiction. The play "Julius Caesar" is renowned for the drama, not the history.

Sure scienctific theories are modified as new evidence arises. Scientific conclusions are necessarily considered as derived from incomplete evidence and are thus necessarily tentative. This is just a fact of evidence based investigation. Because they are claiming their conclusions to be the literal truth of god. If the literal truth of god is actually just a human interpretation, as subject to whim, bias and error as any other conclusion, then there is little reason to give biblically derived conclusions any weight at all.The only true test of a theory (or an "interpretation" if you prefer) is the ability to predict new evidence. Simply shoehorning known facts to fit your interpretation is not adequate. Maybe they see the problem inherent in claiming that biblical truth is only as true as the human ability to interpret it correctly.If you torture it long enough you can make the bible say pretty much whatever you want it to. And there is a long history of people doing just that. Biblical "truth" is as flexible as human imagination.

I doubt it because I never felt any discomfort. Although, I don't think my beliefs are held very strongly in the first place.Growing up, I thought the Flud story was true. Then I found out that a global flood didn't happen. So I didn't believe the Flud story was true anymore. I guess since I wasn't really committed to the belief, then I didn't have anything to be dissonant about. However, I can see how a person who's entire worldview rests on a literal inerrancy of the Bible finding out that it has error would have that dissonance.But I don't see faith as being the answer to that dissonance. It comes before it, not after it. I don't feel like I need to justify my beliefs...I think the less spectacular-ness yields less incongruence which elimates the room for the dissonance to be.It seems like you viewing it as a person having a set of beliefs before any investigation and then finding out the errors of the beliefs. But for me, the beliefs are forged from the investigation so right off the bat there's not a lot of incongruence. And the beliefs that are held prior to investigation aren't held strongly enough to cause the dissonance.

I don't dispute that. I realize that I could be accepting some serious BS. I thought you were saying something more than that.

quote:

---

its about understanding what is written and if adapting our beliefs to what is written is rationalisation, then bring it on.

---

But the scenario you gave isn't adapting the belief to what is written. The scenario you gave adapts what is written to current knowledge. IOW, changing what is written.

quote:

---

Genesis was originally interpreted by someone who did not fully understand ancient hebrew. But its important that our faith be based on accurate knowlege otherwise how can we explain it logically to others?

---

That's rationalizing again. The accurate reading of Genesis conflicts with our current knowledge. Why the need to cast doubt on someone elses skills to remove the conflict?The logical explanation is that it is a story.Out of curiosity, who originally interpreted Genesis?
I assume the seventy scholars who first translated it into Greek. Genesis 1 was probably written about 550—400 BCE and the Septuagint was written 300-200 BCE. Is it really realistic that the scholars of the time didn't understand the language or remember the point of the stories? When a meaning is lost it is usually noted.

quote:

---

Imagine trying to explain a legal document in a court of law if you dont understand legal terminology. You are bound to get thing wrong. First understand what the terminology means, then you can logically explain it and come to accurate knowledge. Its the same with the bible. Understanding Hebrew is paramount to coming to an accurate knowledge of it.

---

I agree and ignoring the rules of language can lead to inaccurate knowledge. When one ignores the basic rules of language, whether English or Hebrew, the person is trying to rationalize away the conflict.Why do they need the ancient text to agree with current knowledge?
Why try to fit a square peg into a round hole?

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

do not scientists re-interpret their research when new evidence comes to light?

​

why can't those who study the bible do the same?

---

There's a difference between reinterpreting research and concluding that the original research conclusions were wrong given the new evidence and reinterpreting what the original researcher actually said. They don't try to reconcile the old conclusion with the new one; especially not by ignoring the basic rules of reading language.That's the difference. They don't have a problem with letting go outdated info.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

What on earth is the Dio?No matter what it is (or was) we only know about the happenstance of it being signed by testimony of people and this is never 100% accurate.