Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

I think you are bundling all of those who claim to have faith into one basket. 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.

Yes I think you might be onto something there. This is what I think I was referring to with regard to the rationally irrational in my previous post in this thread.

Maybe it is deserved. Petrophysics seems to consider it his main mission in life to select specific debates and 1 anyone he disagrees with and 5 anyone he does agree with. I am not alone, but I do seem to be the focus for much of his ire.It might be considered something of a compliment by anyone who has ever read any of his actual posts...... I have no real issue with personal faith of this kind. Where I disagree is when those of "faith" start saying that they are actually following evidence and insisting that I should be something other than skeptical.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes. Simply stating one has faith whilst trenchently advocating that the evidence spports 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.Then there are those who insist that I acknowledge some sort of evidence for their beliefs and who find any rejection of their beliefs as a rejection of such "evidence". These people are the ones I keep ending up in massive disagreements with.

Cog diss essentially comes down to denial of evidence yes? What is the evidence that Shakespeare wrote R&J? What is the evidence that somebody else did?What is the evidence that god actually exists? What is the evidence that god is a man-made construct?These are the questions we should ask to answer the questions ultimately posed. Yes?

Yeah but that wasn't the question. Yeah but that wasn't the question.Who do you believe wrote these texts and on what basis are you making that conclusion? Is it just as valid to say that God wrote Romeo and Juliet and the Declaration of Independence? If living our lives as if the bible were true enhanced the lives of all would you advocate that we follow it regardless of any veracity?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You don't think it matters whether or not the bible is ultimately the word of god? But the authority of the bible does come from who ultimately authored it (in Peq's eyes and those of other believers). So by not answering the question she asked you are failing to address the point being made. Well it is all very well you declaring that but that misses the entire point of this thread. If those who believe that the bible is the word of god follow it because they believe in god and believe that the "facts" in the bible are evidence of the existence of this god then you telling them to be "pragmatic" is rather silly.What do your comments have to do with the nature of faith?

Which, given that the action in question is widely considered to be impossible, is rather a convenient line to take is it not?

Doesn't it worry you that Christian faith is so unashamedly self reverential? Doesn't it smack of BS?

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.

Maybe so. But there are many lacking such common sense and Peq has proven herself to be one of them. It was she you were responding to. I don't think Peq particularly cares whether or not Shakespeare did write Romeo and Juliet. Her point was about how we can have confidence in the source historical texts. In the case of the bible (if one believes it to be the word of god) this is rather relevant. In the case of Shakespeare very much less so. You typically deciding to go off on one of your random tangents doesn't really address that does it? I doubt Peq does disagree that Romeo and Juliet is a good play regardless of whether or not Shakespeare actually wrote it. But how is that relevant to the bible being the word of god, evidence of His existence and worthy of faith? Well on that at least we agree. Even though I do wonder myself how some scientists reconcile the two at times. But that is maybe another discussion.

Faith in the bible as the word of God is entirely dependent on the authenticity of authorship. Yes? Whether or not Romeo and juliet is a decent play should (as you say) be independent of who wrote it. Right?So what is your point exactly? No. As you always do you invented your own irrelevant point and ran with it. If you think that pointing out that Romeo and Juliet is a good read regardless of authorship is relevant to faith in the bible as the word of God then I can only conclude that you have no idea what we are talking about.

One would hope this is the case. Alas......this rarely seems to be the case. Re-interpreting to fit the indisputable facts after a great deal of faith based resistence. And the ones that still insist on this? How do they fit the contradictory evidence into their thinking? Or do they just deny evidence? Arguably it should have more to do with it.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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. 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. 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.

I think you and I have pretty conclusively agreed that just about everything we believe, no matter how well evidenced it may be or how confident we may be, could be BS. I am saying that being told that the less you question an unbelievable claim the more "blessed" you will be smacks of BS. It smacks of BS in the same sort of way that Scientology smacks of BS. Being created by someone who said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."If I was starting a religion that required people to believe outrageous things then I would try to convince people that the less they questioned those claims the more they would be immaterially rewarded in some way. In that sense the whole "blessed are those who believe but do not see" thing smacks of BS.