Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

You should identify what you think these two contradictory ideas are. I cannot talk for all faiths of all people, but I can talk about how what I think it is. The greek word for faith is Pistis, which is related to Pisteuo meaning 'believe' and pietho meaning 'to convince by argument'. This is, I believe, the Biblical view on Faith. It should be evidence-based, it should be logically consistent.I once viewed a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox on Dawkins famous book 'The God Delusion''. At one point they were discussing faith vs science, where Dawkins was advocating that faith was blind, it did not rely on anything but wishfull thinking. Lennox then proceeded to ask a question: ''Do you have faith that your wife loves you ?''. To which Prof. Dawkins answered 'Yes of course'. Lennox continued and said ''Well how do you know this?'' And Dawkins answered ''Well because of the evidence I see, the twinkle in the eye, ...''Knowing he had been a bit 'played', Dawkins proceeded to explain that religious faith cannot be the same. But the issue is of course that it is the same, or at the very least it should be. CHristians are not asked to have blind faith, they are asked to have a rational faith. (PS The debate is online I think, and I paraphrased by memory here so it might not be perfectly accurate quotes) Well I can't fully answer the question since as I said you didn't identify where the dissonance was, but I can say that for mybe the majority of christians, blind faith is the answer to the dissonance they could perceive in their beliefs. That and the appeal to authority. They say ''Well I don't understand all these contradictions, but that guy (insert intelligent christian name here) is a christian, so there are probably logical explanations to these apparent contradictions''But of course, as I touched upon my view of what faith should be biblically, it shouldn't be this way even though I feel this is how it is.

This is the account of Jesus's first encounter with Thomas. Jesus never seems to ridicule Thomas for his skepticism. THis is even though Thomas had other evidence to believe Jesus had risen (Pretty much everybody elses testimony at this point). Despite this, Jesus still appears to him and gives him the amount of evidence he needed to believe.So it wasn't even Blind-faith vs evidence-faith. It was evidence-faith vs more-evidence-faith.But you may be referring to another passage, since you are saying that the Apostles ridiculed him and in this one they don't even speak.

You can have evidence of something even though you didn't see it. Unless you interpret 'seeing' in this passage some sort of metaphor for 'having no evidence'.I consider that it really simply means seeing, in that everybody that came after the first generation of christians have not seen. I haven't seen Jesus, you haven't seen Jesus. Yet I believe and you don't (so I could probably say I am more blessed then you )

I'll reply to this post, but PaulK essentially made the same thing afterwards.Of course, it's an analogy. Analogies are never perfect, and there there is a difference between Dawkins wife and God. (Although one could argue that there is little difference between his wife's love and God) I find it somewhat fallacious to focus on the differences on the analogy and therefore conclude it irrelevant, when in fact an analogy usually just focuses on one particular similarity. In this case you are just focusing on the level of evidence for each (placing Dawkins personnal-visual evidence as better), and not the fact that both rest on evidence.

I don't want to make bold assertions that would derail this thread, since I could just turn to any particular field of evidence and say: I think geological evidence is consistent with a worldwide flood.So I'll just give a brief answer to your question: 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.In terms of extra-biblical evidence, I find some stories of ''afterlife experience'' to be quite interesting, although I have never really studied the subject (can't look into everything) so I'm not going to be very affirmative with this.The whole point is, faith never was supposed to mean ''believing in 6 impossible things before breakfast''. Although as many here have highlighted many christians seem to live it this way.

You do realize testimonial evidence IS evidence ?Thomas had testimonial evidence, but required visual evidence of his own. And Jesus provided it to him.And so ''not seeing'' means ''having no visual evidence''. Doesn't mean having no evidence whatsoever.

You do realize that in court laws, I doubt they would qualify only visual evidence of the murder by the jury as 'concrete'.What Jesus was sayign was simply that they believed because they saw, but those that believed with less evidence to work with such as us 2000 years after the events were blessed.And it's never been about the person who requires that kind of evidence vs the person who doesn't require it. It is about those who have that kind of evidence vs those that don,t havethat kind of evidence. Those that don't have personnal visual confirmation of Jesus's ressurection, yet still believe, are blessed in my opinion. They are blessed in the same way we are blessed to be born in north america and not africa. (people today would say 'lucky', and I wouldn't be surprised that the word blessed in this context would mean something close to the concept of lucky attached to this)

Relevant since you defined the type of evidence Thomas required as 'concrete', suggesting that other type of evidence (testimonial, for example) isn't concrete. The text never says he stuck his fingers in his holes... Ok I'll take another approach, since you don't seem to understand. I'm sorry I express myself so badly.The person who has little evidence, yet still comes to the right conclusion, is blessed. Blessed in the sense that because he had little evidence, maybe that in a lot of alternate realities he would have missed it and believed something else.It's like the muslim who discovers the truth of christianity. I consider him blessed, because he was in a very none-encouraging environment, with little to work with, and of all his entourage who believe something else, he actually managed to find the truth. He is ''blessed'' or ''lucky''.SO it's not in the sense he is blessed and he is above everybody else, it is much closer to being 'lucky'. I'm sure you consider yourself lucky to be born where you were, rather then in poverty. But I guess we can consider that you were 'blessed' also.AbE. This is considering the biblical truth to be 'true'. Of course. If atheism were true, I would consider myself lucky to be of that opinion considering all the people around me believing the lies of theism.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Of course, I totally agree. Nevertheless testimonial evidence is usually considered important in courts. Because it is just like personnal visual evidence, only with another person as intermidiary. So as you said, this person must also be evaulated in regards to the claims.

Well we were talking about Thomas's testimonial evidence he got, but still wanted more proof. I think he knew pretty well the other disciples to be able to judge their testimony.But of course, your turning this discussion into an analysis of the gospels and the historicity of Jesus and his resurection. Which isn't the subject.We ventured to Thomas's story because some were making a case that the Bible advocated blind faith. Which is especially weak considering the ambiguity of the text used as compared to say the proverbs for example who clearly praise wisdom(logic and reason) and science (knowledge). Plus advices by Paul to give a 'reasoned defense' and other such verses. it becomes pretty clear that the Biblical concept of faith in the bible is quite different from what Dawkins portrays it to be for example, or Kant.

wow I totally forgot about that thread back then. Happens to me sometimes, when I don,t come back to a thread without notice it's just that I forgot it. PM me in those occasions. It would represent the laws of nature, in a world where naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible for example. I think we live in such a universe analog to the illustration. I believe naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible in our universe, yet life exists. Therefore, since our universe also has a beginning, and that there was once no life and now there is life, supernaturalistic abiogenesis must have happened.Now, I permit myself to believe naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible in the same way an atheist believes God doesn't exist. Both aren't provable, being universal negatives, and so in both cases the burden of proof rests on the affirmative.So at least in this particular example, no cognitive dissonance for a theist who believes naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible, and for an atheist who believes that it is possible.Inversely, cognitive dissonance would arise for a theist who realizes that naturalistic abiogenesis is possible (if he believes God created life), and for an atheist who realizes that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible.These are the 4 grand lines, with of course some specifics within each that can change.

Just as an atheist finds sufficient proof of God's inexistence in the fact that they see no evidence of his existence, my belief that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible is based on the fact that there is no evidence that it can happen (And in fact chemistry seems to go against it)Now, just as an atheists position could change in the future dependant on new evidence, so is mine of course. I didn't mean it to seem as though I'm 100% sure. But let's say I'm just as sure of it as Dawkins is sure that God doesn't exist.An atheist will say ''I'm 99,9% sure God doesn't exist, and that is sufficient for me to declare 'god doesn't exist' until further notice''. Because science hasn't made it any easier for naturalistic abiogenesis. It was much more reasonable to believe that it could happen in Darwin's time then it is now.In other words, our increase of knowledge in chemistry, biology etc. has only ever decreased of naturalistic abiogenesis even being possible. My belief therefore is based on what we do know as of today, instead of some hope that we will know how it can be done in the future. I let the door open that new evidence in the future will change my perspective, but I base my current position on the actual things we do know.

The error is this, you imply that my belief of reality is based on my analogy. But of course it is not. My belief is based on reality, and the analogy was brought up by Dr.A at the time but it was ever only that: an analogy.Of course, it isn't a 100% perfect picture of reality, an analogy never is. But you can't focus on the differences of the analogy (the fact that the duct tape is a real physical entity in the analogy and that the laws of chemistry are intangible in our reality) to declare that therefore the analogy has no value. especially on a somewhat minor detail.The basis was this: if something happens, which is naturally impossible to happen, then it must have a supernatural cause. An analogy where the duct tape was replaced by a 'force field' would have done the same. But of course, just as natural laws are testable in our universe, so would the force field be testable in the analogy.So if I continue your story, I would then proceed to show you the force field existed. I would put some new balls on the table and start the process, and we would in fact observe the force field. You would then say:''well maybe if we change the color of the balls, or maybe the density of the balls, or maybe the material of the balls, etc" and each time it would not work. There would come a point where I would be the one starring at you with a quizzical look on my face.Same happens with the search for naturalistic abiogenesis. They always having new ideas of possibilities, but in the end these new ideas always run into the same laws of chemistry and thermodynamics. No matter how novel the idea.And in the analogy as in real life, it doesn't mean a way won't be found in the future (see previous post for more on this)I hope this explains a bit more with clarity.

But of course, we then need to take it into the larger picture. I believe in the christian worldview, I think the historical evidence supports the Bible whenever it is possible. In other words, I think there is evidence for supernatural things happening (and at the centre of it all, the ressurection of Jesus Christ)But besides all that, even if I did have all that, it makes no difference because the argument is a Modus Ponens.Abiogenesis happened
If naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible, then supernatural abiogenesis happened.
naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible,
therefore supernatural abiogenesis happened.In which the first premise is empirically verifiable, the second premise is true via the law of excluded middle and Disjunctive Syllogism.And the third premise is proved via induction, im much the same way ''all man are mortal'' is proven. (without ever obtaining 100% certainty) Thanks for not going down that road, I wanted to specify that it would be off-topic for this thread and this section (faith and belief) in my post but I forgot.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

The problem is this tiny bit: This is assuming that the same reactions that occur in a living cell are the same reactions required to create life, and furthermore that these reactions can occur outside of the environment provided by the cell itself.