|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Straggler writes: 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?
Here at EvC I see two (very) broad churches. There are those who say they have faith and that any evidential support or even conflict is irrelevant as that is kinda the point of faith. They take a very rational approach to their irrationality. Then on the other hand are those (the vast majority) who claim to have faith but if questioned at all on this will immediately start talking about evidence. These range from nutjob creationists to the more subtle and complex arguments of those who advocate forms of immaterial evidence as being valid. The first group are aware of their contradictions and seem quite accepting so I don't think cognitive dissonance is particularly a factor there. The second group I think can become cognitively dissonant if forced to confront the inadequacy of the evidence they are advocating or (worse) the superior evidential basis of conclusions that contradict their own. Straggler writes: 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.
Simply stating one has faith whilst trenchantly advocating that the evidence supports that faith is where I see the difference. There are those "rational irrationals" who don't go round expecting anyone else to rationally accept their faith or give it any evidential credence at all. Fine by me. Live and let live. I have no problem with this kind of personal faith at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Stile writes: 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.
(I just regard "becoming a theist" to be different from acknowledging the existence of some "supernatural realm" that has yet been undetected).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Catholic Scientist writes: 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.
Jesus isn't talking about just seeing with your eyes, he's talking about having concrete evidence. Thomas required evidence to believe and Jesus said the blessed are those who believe without evidence. Catholic Scientist writes: Which in my opinion is a good thing. An untested faith is not very strong.
If anything, my faith causes cognitive dissonance. I qualified the evidence with "concrete"... which is what Jesus was talking about. Not just hearing about it, but actually seeing and touching it in order to believe it. The person who requires that kind of evidence to believe does not fall into the blessed crowd, according to Jesus. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You too, Phat, probably believe to some extent on the basis of this witness evidence, though you seem to have fallen for the EvC debunkery bit that says witness evidence isn't evidence. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ProtoTypical writes: Even if we start with the assumption that there is a God and that he created the universe, why do people give more weight to the words of the Bible, something that we know men had a hand in creating, than they do to the physical evidence contained in the universe that he created? This is a point to be considered. Romans talks of this.Rom 1:20 writes: 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.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. So put that scripture on the back burner for now. Lets look at a doozy from the OT: Deut 4:15-20 writes: You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are. In context, some say that Deuteronomy was written by Moses, but according to Wiki, quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ProtoTypical writes: 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. Can God not be found without the bible? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024