Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

We can even use a specific example, if you'd like. Message 54
My question to you in that thread was... what's the duct-tape represent in real life? It doesn't even have to invlove evolution. The duct-tape could represent any objective, verifiable idea within reality that you think is "evidence for faith".This is the cognitive dissonance. The idea of this wonderful analogy, but with nothing to actually apply it towards in real-life. I agree that the duct-tape in your analogy is a fantastic indication of "something going on" (possibly divine, even). However, the analogy includes a cognitive dissonance when attempted to transfer to reality. What, in reality, can the duct-tape actually represent to show that "something is going on" (possibly divine)?Or, perhaps you were just using this duct-tape analogy to show a scenario where it would be plausible to have faith-based-on-evidence, and didn't actually intend for it to be applicable to real life? In which case, no cognitive dissonance would exist. However, no "evidence for faith" would exist, either.

Don't worry about it. Life happens. It was kinda off-topic in that thread anyway. Much more on-topic here. This is what I'm talking about.In the analogy, you use "duct tape"... an objective, verifiable, testable piece of evidence. If we were in your analogy, you could point to the duct tape and show me how the pool balls are blocked from naturally flowing into the pockets.In reality, you say you think we live in an analogous universe.
You say you believe that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible.
But... you do not show any objective, verifiable, testable piece of evidence to support such a conclusion.What does the duct tape actually represent in reality?
In the anaolgy, the duct tape is objectively, physically, testably blocking the natural flow of the balls into the pockets.
In reality, what is objectively, physically, testably blocking the natural flow of abiogenesis from non-life to life?I understand your analogy, but in reality you do not seem to have any duct tape to point to. We're both standing beside the pool table, with no duct tape visible at all, all the balls are in the pockets and you're telling me "I think that I believe there was an invisible force-field blocking the balls from naturally flowing into the pockets". And I'm just sort of starring at you with a quizzical look on my face.That's the cognitive dissonance.Your analogy is discussing hard-core, physical, objective evidence.
However, your reality includes nothing of the sort. Only subjective ideas very similar in evidence to ideas made of pure imagination.The fact that you think an objective, verifiable analogy somehow supports a subjective, unverifiable situation is the cognitive dissonance.

Yes, true. These problems and contradictions would be equivalent to the duct-tape in the analogy, correct? These problems and contradictions would be describable and they would be able to be shown to others, correct? Yes, I understand that you think this point has been reached regarding abiogenesis. What I'm asking for is why you think that to be true.What is the problem with abiogenesis that you think shows it to be practically impossible?
What is the contradiction within abiogenesis that you think shows it to be highly unlikely?You've mentioned "the laws of nature", but I do not recall a law of nature that says "abiogenesis is impossible". There are laws of nature that allow for chemical reactions. There are laws of nature that allow for sustained, evolving processes. There are laws of nature that allow for growth.We do not understand how abiogenesis specifically happened (and, therefore, if it really happened). So it's not like we stood beside the pool table and watched all the balls drop into the pockets. But we have yet to identify any "law of nature" or any other stumbling block that would obviously constrain abiogensis. We have yet to identify a solid strip of duct-tape that blocks the balls on the pool table from going into the pockets.Do we have a known, verified pathway? No, we do not.
Do we have issues, and unknowns? Yes, we do.
Do we have ideas about how to incorporate these issues and unknowns and still have abiogenesis be possible? Yes, we do.
Do we have indications of any outside force? No, we do not.
Do we have a known blockage of any natural pathway? No, we do not.What we have, is more akin to some sort of barrier that moves back and forth in front of the pockets on the pool table. That is, sometimes the balls could just drop in, and sometimes they could be blocked. Do all the balls have enough initial momentum to keep flowing over the table and sometimes bouncing off the barriers until they all eventually drop into the pockets? Not sure yet... that's what's currently being tested.But what we certainly do not have, is duct-tape blocking the entire pockets.That is the cognitive dissonance. The belief that some sort of total blockage exists (duct-tape) when in reality, you are unable (so far, anyway) to actually point to some sort of total blockage. At best, what really exists is some sort of partial-blockage along with many ideas on how to 'deal-with' or 'get around' anyway.There is no cognitive dissonance in hoping or wanting abiogenesis to be impossible. It may still yet be discovered to be so. However, there is cognitive dissonance in saying that you think abiogenesis actually is impossible without being able to show any reasoning within reality to support such an idea.

Whoops, sorry, I meant to answer your final question to cavediver as well. Since I hijacked your conversation with him, I only think it's fair if I also answer your question to him
(And I'm a bit conceited and just like to listen to myself continue to talk sometimes... but that's really just between me and my therapist) No, I would not "become a theist".But, going back to where the goal-posts were placed originally, I certainly would become extremely open to the idea that "something weird was going on" (perhaps even supernatural).(I just regard "becoming a theist" to be different from acknowledging the existance of some "supernatural realm" that has yet been undetected).

I'm resisting becoming a Theist as much as you are resisting becoming a millionaire.
I really would love it if it actually were true... but it's just not. I don't think so.
I don't have an issue with bending my will to a better idea.Can you explain why this is your current theory?
Are you basing it on any evidence from my actual actions? Or is it just something you wish to be true?What about the evidence that I just provided you with? That I don't have a problem letting someone with a better idea lead the way. Does that change your theory or do you stick with your theory despite the evidence? I believe that would cause you to have some cognitive dissonance. This is true. I have a massive confirmation bias in regards to evidence over faith.
Mostly because evidence is confirmed to lead to accurate results while faith generally is not.
When I'm looking for accurate results... I then choose to look for evidence.If faith actually provided better results than evidence, I would follow faith. But this just doesn't seem to happen in our world.

I will agree with that without issue.
You can even tack on "following the evidence doesn't always lead to true conclusions" if it makes you feel better. Maybe. Only you can figure this one out definitively. Not really, no.
But kind of.People are different.Maybe my favourite colour is green and yours is red.
I wouldn't really understand why you like red over green when green is obviously so much better.
But, kind of... I can understand that your feelings are yours and my feelings are mine. In that context, I can understand how you like red... it's the same way I like green.Same thing with God.I accept evidence over feelings for my reasons (personal experience and their track record with all of humanity).
You may accept feelings over evidence for your reasons (personal experience and your personal track record).I feel that evidence is much better for judging reality about God.
You feel that feelings are much better for judging reality about God.I don't really understand why you think feelings are better than evidence when evidence is obviously so much better.
But, kind of... I can understand that your feelings are yours and my feelings are mine. In that context, I can understand how you like to follow your feelings while I like to follow the evidence.I really don't care if you think differently than I do.
People are different... of course there's going to be people who think different than I do.If you try to force the idea that all people really should think about God in the same way, while in reality people are all different, you're going to run into cognitive dissonance. Your ideas about reality are not going to align with how reality actually is. This will cause a certain level of discomfort. Many people try to deal with this discomfort by attempting to persuade others to think the same way they do. After all... if everyone thought the same way they did, the cognitive dissonance (the "uncomfortable-ness") would go away.But that's just not going to happen.
That's like trying to persuade everyone else that red is a better colour than green. You're just wrong.
("Well, when God shows Himself to you and you really see Him for real... then you'll see the truth!")
("Well, when red shows itself to you and you really see red for real... then you'll see the truth!")
Seriously... no difference.The correct way to relieve this sort of cognitive dissonance is to understand that people are different and different people are going to think about God in different ways. Then you can understand why some people don't agree with you. Then you'll feel comfortable when others disagree with you. Sure.
You also need to understand that objectively speaking theories based on evidence are much more likely to be an accurate representation of reality than theories based on feelings. Regardless of the level of tentativity. This doesn't mean that having your theories being tentative is a bad thing... that's always a good thing. But if your goal is to "follow an accurate representation of reality" and 2 paths are both tentative and possibly wrong... why not choose the one path that has the best track record for leading to the correct answer?The answer to that question is, of course... that not everyone wants to "follow an accurate representation of reality" to the best of their ability. They have other desires.That's okay. But if you're not honest with yourself about your own priorities... you'll run into even more cognitive dissonance.