|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4967 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
slevesque says: I believe in an afterlife because I see that the Bible's claim about earthly things is accurate (either it be history, or even human psychology, the Bible is usually spot on). I therefore have confidence that when it talks about heavenly things, it is also accurate. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Larni writes: Good point: I wonder if having to face the evidence causes people to either loose their belief in their god or become more radicalised. no, it causes them to re-examine what they think they know about God 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. cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3482 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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 change Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Larni writes: I wonder if having to face the evidence causes people to either loose their belief in their god or become more radicalised. no, it causes them to re-examine what they think they know about God One would hope this is the case. Alas......this rarely seems to be the case.
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. Re-interpreting to fit the indisputable facts after a great deal of faith based resistence.
This is why there are some christians who do not accept the 6 literal days of creation. And the ones that still insist on this? How do they fit the contradictory evidence into their thinking? Or do they just deny evidence?
cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with it. Arguably it should have more to do with it. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Straggler writes: Re-interpreting to fit the indisputable facts after a great deal of faith based resistence. do not scientists re-interpret their research when new evidence comes to light? why can't those who study the bible do the same?
Straggler writes: And the ones that still insist on this? How do they fit the contradictory evidence into their thinking? Or do they just deny evidence? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Peg writes:
It is not universally accepted. It is a subject of much debate.
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'?Shakespeare authorship question - Wikipedia Shakespeare Authorship Debate at AbsoluteShakespeare.com Shakespeare Resource Center - Page not Found Do a google search for "shakespeare authorship" (without the quotes) for more links on the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
My point is simple. Why is it universally accepted that Shakespere wrote 'romeo and juliette'? 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]"
source But 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
do not scientists re-interpret their research when new evidence comes to light? 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.
why can't those who study the bible do the same? 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.
Perhaps they simply dont care...i really dont know the answer to this. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I propose cognitive dissonance made you not believe in the more spectacular miracles... 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.
and the lesser spectacular, the less you need to justify your beliefs to yourself and others. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And I am just pointing out that as a general principle if you are told something that sounds utterly impossible and then also told that questioning, doubting or requiring evidence is somehow wrong then - That is a strong and dangerous recipe for accepting some serious BS. I don't really see how that can be disputed.
I don't dispute that. I realize that I could be accepting some serious BS. I thought you were saying something more than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3482 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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: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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3482 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024