Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

No, it would be like telling you that no matter how much you like that chocolate, it isn't evidence that they are actually delicious unicorn poops deposited in faery glades.Your personal preference for a religious behavior or belief does not in any way justify its existence. It is simply proof that you like it.

Is there any objective evidence at all in support of your theistic beliefs?

Is there any objective evidence at all in support of the conclusion that contradicts your theistic beliefs (e.g. god as the product of human invention)

On balance which conclusion is best evidenced?

Would it cause you cognitive dissonance to accept that a contradictory conclusion is better evidenced than the one you believe in?

​

Please note I am not talking about proof. I am simply asking what evidence you think exists and, on balance, which conclusion you consider to be best evidenced.

​

Straggler writes:

​

I am asking if there is an evidential basis to your beliefs which, if demonstrated to be invalid, would cause you cognitive dissonance.

​

What do you mean by an "evidential basis"?

​

The personal experiences that you cite as supporting your belief - Aside from your personal belief there is no more reason to attribute the cause of these experiences to god as there is to magic moonbeams, fluctuations in the matrix or indeed any other empirically unknowable scenario we could conceive of.

​

Do you accept this?

​

Straggler writes:

​

So you consider belief itself to be a valid form of evidence?

​

Not just the belief itself, its that people have thought it out and investigated it and come to that conclusion that makes me think its more plausible.

​

"Investigated"?

​

Every shred of objective evidence available to us indicates that the universe operates without any need for supernatural intervention. The question of why humans believe in (and even experience) gods is a natural phenomenon requiring explanation the same as any other. Why do you think the supernatural answer to this question (i.e. that gods actually exist) will fare any better than any of the other supernatural answers erroneously posited by humanity to explain other natural phenomenon?

​

Although, I don't think the liklihood that you use logically follows from the evidence.

​

RAZD (and you too previously although thankfully no more) relentlessly translate everything I say into imbecilic black and white TRUE or FALSE statements of logical certitude. I think this is because he just doesn't have an adequate answer to the argument that the best evidenced conclusion should be considered the most likely to be correct. If you do I would be delighted to hear it?

​

Straggler writes:

​

I don't believe I ever have. In the same sense that I would not dispute your personal preference for chocolate over strawberry ice cream as being personally "evidenced".

​

Discounted in the sense that you think I'm irrational for accepting it as a reason to believe.

​

I don't consider my personal preferences to be "beliefs". I don't consider my personal preferences to be derived from evidence as such. Nor would I say my personal preferences are rational. You seem to be comparing chalk and cheese.

quote:

---

I would suggest that faith is what people have instead of cognitive dissonance.

---

I think this is partly true, but not completely.People certainly do use faith as a way to 'choose' what to believe and that can reduce cognitive dissonance.However, the fact that many creationists are uncomfortable with evolution and many are actually hostile to it suggests that most of the time this doesn't work completely. They clearly feel the contradiction between science and faith and work to reduce it. It's a rare creationist who can say 'I know what science says, I accept there is evidence of evolution, but I choose my faith above this evidence'. Most try to discredit the evidence.In fact, some creationists go to point of accusing evolutionists of being liars, corrupt etc when confronted with evidence. This is simply a way of reducing their cognitive dissonance.Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

sometimes, yes.The written word can tell us part of the story, but sometimes the physical evidence can tell us the rest.One example is the Mosaic law requiring circumsicion to take place on the 8th day of a baby's life. No one knew why that specific requirement was there until the medical profession discovered that a babies production of vitamin K is fully established on the 8th day. This vit k prevents hemoraging.So yes, sometimes the physical evidence adds to our understanding of the written word.

i dont know why this is hard for you to understand, but you are still missing the point.The physical evidence prompted some to really research the word 'yom' in hebrew and they began to understand that the word yom does not only mean a 24 hour day.Yom is used throughout the bible in many contexts of time. So they looked at the physical evidence and realised that the yom in genesis did not have to mean 24 hours. I know you wont accept that explanation because you have fought tooth and nail against it for a long time but its not going to change the fact that the word yom can mean various lengths of time.

Where there is a conflict between physical evidence and biblical text would you always advocate that the text is simply re-interpreted?

not in all cases, no. I certainly wouldnt do that with the account of the flood. If all avenues of understanding the text have been exhausted, then i would uphold the validity of the text. This is the case with the evolution argument. Just because scientists claim that evolution is a fact, im certainly not going to accept their word over the bible.

What determines which cases you will and which you won't? How can "all avenues of understanding the text" ever be exhausted? Surely it can be interpreted in a near infinite number of different ways. Do not most Christians consider much of the bible metaphorical? But whose interpretation of the bible? Yours? The majority of Christians see no conflict between the bible and evolution.Why do you consider your interpretation as superior to theirs?

quote:

---

i dont know why this is hard for you to understand, but you are still missing the point.

---

I'm not missing your point.Your point concerning yom: Since current knowledge tells us that it takes more than 24 hours for extreme changes to take place on this planet, then the creation story in Genesis 1 must not be referring to 24 hour days because that would be incorrect given the current knowledge. In searching through the Bible, scholars have found that the word yom can carry a figurative meaning of differing lengths of time. Therefore, there is no conflict in Genesis 1 with current knowledge because yom can mean differing lengths of time. How'd I do?

quote:

---

I know you wont accept that explanation because you have fought tooth and nail against it for a long time but its not going to change the fact that the word yom can mean various lengths of time.

---

The fact that figuratively yom can mean various lengths of time is not the point of our contention. The fact that yom has been used to express various lengths of time in the Bible is also not the point of our contention.It all boils down to usage within the specific sentence in question. That is what determines what meaning of a word is used. That is our point of contention and one you have yet to address. If you wish to address it, please go to the appropriate thread. (I can reopen the literal vs non-literal thread if you wish.)Those who rationalize to make the information in the Bible mesh with current knowledge tend to ignore the rules of reading a language, whether English or Hebrew. The other thing some do and you tend to do is add more backstory to make the conflict disappear.The question is, does it make you uncomfortable when any Bible text conflicts with physical evidence?Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

I suspect also that it was physical evidence that led to it being written down - when lots of babies died from premature circumcisions, someone spotted the pattern and reduced mortality and wrote it down so that more babies didn't die (and in this hypothetical scenario - if the person dishonestly claimed it was the word of god in order to convince everybody to wait until they cut - I don't blame them at all). The risk of severe bleeding is high during the first week - but it doesn't vanish on the eight day.

well the genesis 'day' is an example of such a case. It doesnt change the story of creation....it merely enhances our understanding of what the 'day' was.but we wouldnt do the same thing with a biblical account such as the flood, or the exodus from egypt, or the wandering in the wilderness for 40 years because these are considered historical accounts. We wouldnt change the 'story' as such, but we might change our understanding of some aspects of the story. These would be based on the hebrew words used and the culture/times/customs etc. by text i mean the hebrew language, and yes there are some aspects of ancient hebrew that scholars still havnt got an absolute understanding of. This is because ancient hebrew has not been used in so long. If something comes to light in the future then we would 100% adjust our understanding/interpretation.And yes, there are numerous ways of interpreting the bible but the thing is that interpretation needs to be based on an accurate understanding of the language/customs/times/culture and the rest of the scriptures...unfortunately not everyone takes all these into consideration when coming to an interpretation.my view is that christians who view most of the bible as metaphorical do so because they do not have an adequate explanation...something that makes sense. when you say evolution, do you mean that all life arose from a primordial soup without intelligent direction?If thats what you mean then its in direct conflict with the idea of a creator as i'm sure you are aware. So if a christian believes in this, then they probably dont view the bible as a book from a creator in the first place, and theirfore i would be asking them why they are attempting to interpret something that they dont believe in.Im sure you'd agree that if you want to learn anything, you should learn from someone who actually believes in what they are teaching.

we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.hebrew grammar is nothing like english grammar and the rules in hebrew are completely different. We've been down this track before and im not going down it again.lets just agree to disagree,hey.

But shouldn't that interpretation equally take into account the level scientific and geographical knowledge of the authors?

Only in conflict with a creator that needs to continually patch and hold its creation together with spit and baling wire. A creator only specifically deals with the act of *creation*, not maintenance. Evolution deals with the development and advancement/adaptation of life, and abiogenesis with how that life arose from non-living material; neither addresses where that material came from in the first place.Evolution and abiogenesis are only in conflict with *your* concept of a creator Peg, not all creator concepts. The ability to acknowledge things that conflict with your beliefs will greatly aid conversations on the topic.

How have you reached the conclusion that it is impossible? I think you will be hard pressed to find an atheist who says that the existence of god is impossible. I think "highly improbable" is about as much as you will get. Atheists tend to be very wary of absolute certainty.Are you wedded to your "impossible" stance? Or would improbable suffice? Every shred of objective evidence available to us indicates that the universe operates without any need for supernatural intervention. Why do you think the supernatural answer to the question of abiogenesis will fly in the face of this evidence and fare any better than any of the other supernatural explanations previously posited for observed phenomenon?Or is that where the whole faith thing comes into play?