Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

It is obvious to anybody with a modicum of common sense, that the bible is not the word of god except in a metaphorical sense. I was quite obviously disagreeing with Peg's position on the importance of authorship. How could an expression of disagreement be a failure to address her point? Perhaps. However, it precisely responded to the question you asked. I had thought that the topic was about the nature of cognitive dissonance.There are many scientists who are also Christians. I doubt that many of them suffer from any cognitive dissonance because of that. In most cases, I expect that they have come to an understanding of their Christianity that is not in conflict with their faith.

And here is where it gets even hairier. With the gospels we can't even authenticate the authorship nor an we cross examine the author. On top of that, much of the gospels are made up of second hand accounts (i.e. heresay). Now if this were all related to a mundane historical fact we could overlook some of these problems and be fine with knowing that the claims may not be true. However, we aren't talking about anything mundane here. We are talking about a deity become man who comes back to life and is the sole key to the afterlife. That is anything but mundane. Surely one needs something better than second hand accounts of questionable authorship with no means of verification.

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.

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.

As you can see, Peg was specifically arguing a similarity between faith in the factuality of what is in the bible, and with the authorship of Romeo and Juliet. My response (Message 23) commented on both points.So, yes, I did address the point that Peg raised.

Belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence.Like the global flood incident, Noah's ark, waling on water, magically turning water into wine...Apparently these things "require faith" to believe as they contradict what we know about the laws of physics, chemistry, modern geology and general reality.Edited by killinghurts, : spellingEdited by killinghurts, : examplesEdited by killinghurts, : grammar

That's interesting.I wonder though, without the "faith" bandage would the cognitive dissonance then appear later? I.e do the people with faith, when finally presented with contrary evidence (which is inevitable in this day and age), then point to their faith as a way of relieving confusion.

No they are not "assured" and this is precisely what I am getting at... If you and your partner get engaged there is a chance that the engagement might not be fulfilled into marrigage, correct? Lots of engagements don't work for various reasons.However, in order to for you to not feel uncomfortable (i.e feel a cognitive dissonance) you must assure yourself (and perhaps even lie to yourself) to give you confidence that you have made the correct decision.e.g:"Oh I hope he/she really loves me""I hope she/he doesn't go back to his ex-girlfirend/boyfriend"There is no material or logical evidence to assume that the above wont happen, you must "have faith" or reassure yourself that you have made the right decision based on no evidence.Now apply the same line of thought to the bible and it's claims of supernatural happenings...

I believe all kinds of different things without logical proof or material evidence... But since I already believe in God, him temporarily breaking the laws of physics doesn't cause me cognitive dissonance... to an extent It depends on how much of the laws it has to go against.For example, an actual global flood would require a god that is duping damn near everyone.One guy turning water into wine one time... not so much.And actually, with the flood scenario, the breaking wouldn't really be all that "temporary".Honestly though, I fell like I'm the type to error on the side of science, so to speak... The miraculous things I have faith in aren't so spectacular to cause the cognitive dissonance... or so I think

You're certainly not alone. I propose cognitive dissonance made you not believe in the more spectacular miracles...and the lesser spectacular, the less you need to justify your beliefs to yourself and others. Just a guess of course Edited by killinghurts, : No reason given.

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.

Good point: I wonder if having to face the evidence causes people to either loose their belief in their god or become more radicalised.

right.However, what about the people who witnessed the DOI coming together and being signed?Do you think they had any doubt about how this document came to be or who wrote it?

you silly buggar lol!i wasnt comparing them....i was providing a modern example of what 'faith' is to help ppl better understand the faith we put in the bible.Faith isnt blind. Its based on those 'evident demonstrations' of the past which give us evidence for what is promised in the future.for example - God promises to send a deliverer to save mankind.
2,000 years later and that deliverer appears. So the evident demonstration of the earlier promise was realised in Jesus Christ. This gives people faith that future promises will become a reality because past promises became a reality. This is faith. no, its because those things were brought about by supernatural powers....they were miracles. no offence taken at my end.