Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

This reminds me of our current What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You? thread. Would you agree that the first group does not employ critical thinking as much due to their choice regarding faith over evidence? Personally, I think I belong more to the first group. I realize that I have confirmation bias in many aspects of my faith. I realize that I assume that the "invisible Unicorn" must be there as my default position. In short, I question my belief but due to the emotional support that it gives me, I never allow myself to doubt it.

The armchair psychologist in me is curious why you resist becoming a Theist. My current theory is that you cherish the idea of being in charge of your thinking and that any sort of allegiance to belief in a Deity robs you of this freedom. Oh and that you honestly have found no Deity thus far....though I wonder if you have a confirmation bias in regards to evidence over faith.

Some would challenge that and say that blessed (and sane) are those who won't believe without evidence. I suppose it all depends how seriously we take Jesus--be He actually alive, as I believe...or whether He is simply a character in a story. Even if the latter were true, the character considers faith without evidence to be a blessed trait. Which in my opinion is a good thing. An untested faith is not very strong. Although Thomas was most certainly "blessed" after he found his evidence. We can't assume that skeptics and atheists who demand the evidence will be any less blessed were they to die tomorrow having found none. As long as they are honest about their belief that evidence is necessary, I personally believe that they did not live their lives in vain. Perhaps for some of us, evidence is only found after death.

All Im saying is that you have followed the evidence and found no god. Perhaps I am judging you in that I cant understand why you dont feel as I do. Perhaps you dont understand why I accept feelings over evidence or why I interpret my feelings as evidence.Other than that, you have to understand that my theories are always tentative.

The witness evidence is enough for my beliefs, but when talking with those at EvC who are not believers, I follow their standard for evidence rather than my own. I have not "fallen" for anything...i simply use the standards that they use for the sake of argument.My belief may be logical or illogical in the final analysis...but for the purposes of discussion I try to agree on some sort of consensus so that we may communicate without arguments.were my standards for proof used as a basis for the discussion, likely nobody would agree with me.Standards of proof and evidence require a consensus in order to discuss further.

This is a point to be considered. Romans talks of this. What does the evidence show? It shows that we humans are learning a lot more about time and space and heavenly bodies. Critics would disagree that Gods "qualities" are understood a priori from what has been made.So put that scripture on the back burner for now. Lets look at a doozy from the OT: In context, some say that Deuteronomy was written by Moses, but according to Wiki,

quote:

---

While traditionally accepted as the genuine words of Moses delivered on the eve of the occupation of Canaan, a broad consensus of modern scholars now see its origins in traditions from Israel (the northern kingdom) brought south to the Kingdom of Judah in the wake of the Assyrian destruction of Samaria (8th century BC) and then adapted to a program of nationalist reform in the time of King Josiah (late 7th century), with the final form of the modern book emerging in the milieu of the return from the Babylonian exile during the late 6th century.

---

Perhaps it is not so important who wrote it as it is to determine the motive behind the writings as well as the message being told through the writing. Why was it important to not bow down (figuratively or literally) to things---or our interpretation and/or understanding of the significance of things?Finally, should I give more weight to what I personally observe and test than I do to what a book or another person---through the book---tells me to think?

Even the Bible itself says that He can.(Romans 18) and of course at the time of the Gospels there was no actual Bible...but there was OT Scrolls and writings.The problem with finding God without the Bible is that God (the one that is found) is but a product of human imagination.I would argue that if God exists---apart from human legends and imaginings--it would be more likely that He found us long before we found Him.I know that I personally never found Him from simply reading the Bible. Critics would even question my sanity as to whether or not I met Him.(due to the fact that He found me.) In all honesty, I cant argue the point any further than what we have done.