Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 136 of 227 (558380)
04-30-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by purpledawn
04-30-2010 11:56 AM


Re: Rationalization
purpledawn writes:
The rules may be different, but there are rules and whatever rules are in place in Hebrew to determine which meaning is to be used when there is more than one meaning available is what we have to follow. You haven't even shown the pointers within the Hebrew rules.
what amazes me most is that in the very verse that says there was a 'first day', the yom is described as the 'light', and yet you continue to say that the gramma does not indicate that the yom is anything but a 24 hour time period.
According to the verse, the Yom is only the light....nothing to do with time at all.
Genesis 1:3 And Elohim said, Let there be light: and there was light [Tehillim 33:6,9].
4 And Elohim saw the light, that it was tov (good); and Elohim divided the ohr (light) from the choshech (darkness).
5 And Elohim called the light Yom (Day), and the darkness He called Lailah (Night). And the erev (evening) and the boker (morning) were Yom Echad (Day One, the First Day)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by purpledawn, posted 04-30-2010 11:56 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by purpledawn, posted 05-02-2010 12:25 PM Peg has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 227 (558391)
05-01-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by slevesque
04-30-2010 11:15 PM


Re: Duct Tape = ??
slevesque writes:
... And so the reactions being possible does not mean naturalistic abiogenesis is possible.
This procedure of yours looks like fallacy of composition to me.
Only if I were making a logical argument. My point is that you don't show a block in the path, not that the path is necessarily unbroken.
slevesque writes:
You'll have to explain more of this, if all of life had 50-50 distribution of chirality, does it not have the same effect then all left-handed (in regards to common ancestry)
Potentially, but it would still be exposed to selection pressures. Left-handed amino acids effect the handedness of other organic products; a peptide replicator can increase the proportion of a particular handedness in a random solution.
This isn't proof of course, but it is hardly an impossibility.
slevesque writes:
link to published paper ?
Service, R. F. 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.
But then we are straying rather significantly from the topic.
slevesque writes:
I think me suggesting there are no paths is a far cry from affirming it to be true As in needed for it to be an argument from ignorance). This is logically consistent because I make an inductive usage to suggest this, not deductively proving it.
Then it appears our difference of opinion stems again from your acceptance of the plausibility of supernatural happenings over naturalistic processes that are currently poorly documented in your view. This is again beyond the scope of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 04-30-2010 11:15 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 2:28 AM Phage0070 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 138 of 227 (558404)
05-01-2010 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2010 5:06 PM


Re: Balance of Evidence
We started this conversation when you pointed out that you are not committed to an inerrant bible and I in turn asked what it is that you are committed to. It seems that you are committed to the following:
1) You are deeply committed to the notion that your personal subjective experiences are indicative of the specific aspects of immaterial reality that you believe in but not evidence for any of the other equally valid possible causes of these experiences.
2) You are also committed to maintaining that your beliefs are not contradicted by evidence in any way at all including resistence to the idea that a conclusion which contradicts your own might be better evidenced.
Straggler writes:
Is there any objective evidence at all in support of the conclusion that contradicts your theistic beliefs (e.g. god as the product of human invention)
I don't think so.
I thought that you accepted both that all human claims necessarily operate in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology and that humans have demonstrated themselves as prone to inventing undetectable answers to questions of explanation and meaning. Yet you simultaneously consider any scepticism towards "Jesus's divinity and God's existence" as human constructs to be utterly devoid of any evidential support?
How do I know if an isolated experience was objective or not?
Can religious experiences of the sort under discussion be video taped or audio recorded? If not why not? What is it about them that makes this impossible? Are such experiences even able to be objectified? If so how?
What do you mean by an "evidential basis"? I don't know what kind of answers there are for that...
I mean the subjective immaterial experiences that you have been happy to label as "subjective evidence" in all our prior threads on this broad topic. Visions, voice of God - That kind of thing. I am unsure why you are suddenly so reticent to use the term "evidence" in this thread. Maybe you are at last coming round to my way of thinking?
What evidential basis are you committed to?
Any which can demonstrate itself as leading to conclusions which are demonstrably superior to blind chance.
What are the alternatives?
Reasons for belief which are all too often mislabelled "evidence" and which ultimately boil down to nothing more than personal conviction.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2010 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 139 of 227 (558406)
05-01-2010 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by slevesque
04-30-2010 4:20 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance Repaired with Duct Tape
Just as an atheist finds sufficient proof of God's inexistence in the fact that they see no evidence of his existence.......
Whoah there! This atheist would cite the fact that humanity has a long and undistinguished record of invoking the supernatural to explain nature and that so far we have a 100% record of failure. This atheist would point out that the suprenatural hypothesis has failed spectacularly and that all of the evidence available strongly indicates that gods are created by humans to fill our need for explanation and meaning.
This atheist would point out that the only reason for continuing with the supernatural hypothesis as an explanation for observed phenomenon (e.g. the existence of life) is human conviction that the supernatural must have some role in things somewhere. Which tells us far more about human psychology than it does a genuine role for the supernatural.
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.
Ah so you are essentially a proponent of a god of the gaps then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by slevesque, posted 04-30-2010 4:20 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 5:19 PM Straggler has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 140 of 227 (558573)
05-02-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Peg
04-30-2010 11:38 PM


Off Topic
Since this Yom discussion is getting off topic and you do seem to want to continue, there is now a thread available.
Discerning Which Defintion to Use
I look forward to your response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Peg, posted 04-30-2010 11:38 PM Peg has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 141 of 227 (558613)
05-03-2010 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Phage0070
05-01-2010 2:24 AM


Re: Duct Tape = ??
Only if I were making a logical argument.
What other options do you have ?? An illogical argument ?
My point is that you don't show a block in the path, not that the path is necessarily unbroken.
Bad phrase structure prevents me from understanding I think
Then it appears our difference of opinion stems again from your acceptance of the plausibility of supernatural happenings over naturalistic processes that are currently poorly documented in your view. This is again beyond the scope of this thread.
Yes the topic was that faith was the answer to cognitive dissonance. Stile, in response to my opinion on this, chose an example which we could discuss. The purpose was showing cognitive dissonance. I introduced a simple argument about abiogenesis that could maybe show cognitive dissonance in the atheistic worldview. In fact, it was this very argument that convinced Anthony Flew (maybe the Dawkins of the 70's) to become a Theist.
But here is the fact, there is only really cognitive dissonance from my point of view, because I think the world around us shows evidence of God. Therefore, from my POV, holding an atheistic philosophy in spite of this evidence seems like cognitive dissonance.
This is essentially the process that is behind the OP of claiming faith is the answer to the cognitive dissonance of christians. Yet, this is only from his point of view. This is because evidence does not speak for itself. Claiming so is a logical fallcy. Evidence is interpreted in a framework, and most of the times the same piece of evidence can be explained in multiple sometimes very different frameworks. This then gives the illusion of cognitive dissonance from the respective point of views, when really there is none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Phage0070, posted 05-01-2010 2:24 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Phage0070, posted 05-03-2010 3:30 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 10:31 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 227 (558617)
05-03-2010 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by slevesque
05-03-2010 2:28 AM


Re: Duct Tape = ??
slevesque writes:
What other options do you have ?? An illogical argument?
A rejection of *your* argument. You claim that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible, and I point out that you have not met the burden of proof for that assertion. I need not create a logical argument proving the assertion that naturalistic creation is possible in order to reject your assertion.
If you cannot get from point A to point B, then there must be something along the way that prevents such a thing from occurring. You claim getting from A to B materialistically is impossible, and I point out that you have not shown any step from A to B to *actually* be materialistically impossible.
It may be that neither of us actually know all the steps between A and B, but your summary elimination of the possibility as support for your supernatural alternative is unwarranted.
slevesque writes:
Bad phrase structure prevents me from understanding I think
My not accepting the argument "This is impossible because I don't understand it," is not the same as saying "This is possible."
slevesque writes:
But here is the fact, there is only really cognitive dissonance from my point of view, because I think the world around us shows evidence of God.
Then it isn't really faith that you are talking about. If faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see," (Hebrews 11:1) then what you have described is a normal logical conclusion based on your interpretation of the evidence. Faith would be confidence in that conclusion without the evidence you mentioned.
We can debate what evidence exists, what that evidence indicates, and the conclusions we should draw from that evidence, but none of that involves faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 2:28 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 5:39 PM Phage0070 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 143 of 227 (558630)
05-03-2010 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by slevesque
05-03-2010 2:28 AM


Re: Duct Tape = ??
Only if I were making a logical argument.
What other options do you have ?? An illogical argument ?
Evidence based arguments of comparative verisimilitude. All evidence based arguements are necessarily based on incomplete evidence and a degree of inductive reasoning.
In the context of evidence statements of logical certitude and wholly deductive logic are not possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 2:28 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 144 of 227 (558661)
05-03-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
05-01-2010 6:09 AM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance Repaired with Duct Tape
Whoah there! This atheist would cite the fact that humanity has a long and undistinguished record of invoking the supernatural to explain nature and that so far we have a 100% record of failure. This atheist would point out that the suprenatural hypothesis has failed spectacularly and that all of the evidence available strongly indicates that gods are created by humans to fill our need for explanation and meaning.
This atheist would point out that the only reason for continuing with the supernatural hypothesis as an explanation for observed phenomenon (e.g. the existence of life) is human conviction that the supernatural must have some role in things somewhere. Which tells us far more about human psychology than it does a genuine role for the supernatural.
But this is only a subjective view of the evidence by an atheist.
A theist is a theist because he thinks the evidence points to that conclusion. This is a subjective intepretation of the evidence, and it would be illegitimate for him to conclude that the atheists refusal to face the evidence and continue in his naturalistic worldview reveals much more about human psychology.
Ah so you are essentially a proponent of a god of the gaps then.
Of course not, God of the Gaps is based on what we do not know.
The argument I presented is based on the knowledge of what we do know. The premise 'naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible' is supported by chemistry and so on.
On the other hand, a God of the Gaps argument about the classic example of Lightning is very different. Such an argument would have to contain a premise somewhat like 'lightning cannot have a natural cause'. But such a premise, at the time it was done, had no supporting fact for the simple reason that they didn't even know what lightning even was. This is in stark contrast to life, which the more we know about it the more the original premise is confirmed.
Anthony Flew was a the most vocal atheist of his time, he knew very well what a god of the gaps was philosophically. He recognized the fundamental difference between that and the argument of abiogenesis impossibility very well, this is why it was able to convince him.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 05-01-2010 6:09 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 05-03-2010 5:41 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 145 of 227 (558665)
05-03-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Phage0070
05-03-2010 3:30 AM


Re: Duct Tape = ??
A rejection of *your* argument. You claim that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible, and I point out that you have not met the burden of proof for that assertion. I need not create a logical argument proving the assertion that naturalistic creation is possible in order to reject your assertion.
If you cannot get from point A to point B, then there must be something along the way that prevents such a thing from occurring. You claim getting from A to B materialistically is impossible, and I point out that you have not shown any step from A to B to *actually* be materialistically impossible.
Because it is not the point of the subject. I say I think such an impossible step does exist. I think it is pretty obvious that I would hold my position if this was not the case.
It may be that neither of us actually know all the steps between A and B, but your summary elimination of the possibility as support for your supernatural alternative is unwarranted.
Summary elimination ? The results of more then 50 years of research into naturalistic abiogenesis (ever since Miller) show it is more then reasonable to inductively conclude that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible. And once again, as I said, this conclusion is subjective to the everyone. But you cannot tag someone of having cognitive dissonance because he arrives at a different conclusion then you.
Then it isn't really faith that you are talking about. If faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see," (Hebrews 11:1) then what you have described is a normal logical conclusion based on your interpretation of the evidence. Faith would be confidence in that conclusion without the evidence you mentioned.
We can debate what evidence exists, what that evidence indicates, and the conclusions we should draw from that evidence, but none of that involves faith.
And we come back to the very first point I made in this thread: that this was a false conception of faith. THe very greek origin of the word points of belief based on evidence.
And not only that, but how can you expect to be 'certain' and 'sure' of something if the prerequirement is that you have absolutely no basis for this. You can't. And in fact the verse never talks about it having to be without evidential basis. In fact, this verse you cited, coupled with the greek origin of the word, gives a radically different view of faith then what you are wanting it to say.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Phage0070, posted 05-03-2010 3:30 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by cavediver, posted 05-03-2010 6:25 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 148 by Phage0070, posted 05-03-2010 7:14 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 227 (558666)
05-03-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by slevesque
05-03-2010 5:19 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance Repaired with Duct Tape
But this is only a subjective view of the evidence by an atheist.
You consider it to be a subjective conclusion that naturalistic explanations have dominated at the expense of supernatural ones? How many supernatural explanations have been posited by humanity to explain aspects of nature? How many have been borne out? How many have been rejected as our knowledge of nature has increased. Dude - It is one way traffic. How can you deny that?
Wherever we find a human need for explanation or meaning that is yet to be met by evidence based enquiry we find the mystical and supernatural inserted to fill the gap. This is probably as true now as it ever was. The only real difference being that our evidence based knowledge base is greater, a multitude of supernatural explanations have been effectively refuted, and the remaining gaps are thus fewer and harder to fill. In fact this human inclination to invoke and believe in the undetectable has proven itself to be is sooo strong that it often pervades even in the face of evidence. So why would we expect this widely demonstrated human failing to to result in any more success explaining natural phenomenon now than it has done previously?
Ah so you are essentially a proponent of a god of the gaps then.
Of course not, God of the Gaps is based on what we do not know.
Indeed. We do not know how life arose on Earth. If we did you wouldn't be inserting yoyr supernatural answer would you?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 5:19 PM slevesque has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 147 of 227 (558669)
05-03-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by slevesque
05-03-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Duct Tape = ??
Summary elimination ? The results of more then 50 years of research into naturalistic abiogenesis (ever since Miller) show it is more then reasonable to inductively conclude that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible.
Woah - that's some huge confirmation bias at work just because we don't have the mechanism sorted for abiogenesis does not mean thart we are not massively further ahead than we were 50 years ago! Is quantum gravity also "impossible" because after well over 50 years of trying, we still don't have the answer?
What is your "impossible" step? Chirality? There are several proposed mechanisms. The development of proto-genetics? There are several proposed mechanisms. The stability of proto-cells? There are several proposed mechanisms.
To declare naturalistic abiogenesis as "impossible" suggests you have much to learn of science. To be taken seriously with such a comment you would have to have a thorough knowledge of the field, its arguments and propositions, and you would need robust counter-arguments against each, plus further arguments to suggest why no future research will yield solutions.
Of course, you are most welcome to take such a position on faith, and no-one would hold it against you. But your scientific credibility would be zero.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 5:39 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by slevesque, posted 05-05-2010 3:53 PM cavediver has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 227 (558675)
05-03-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by slevesque
05-03-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Duct Tape = ??
slevesque writes:
Summary elimination ? The results of more then 50 years of research into naturalistic abiogenesis (ever since Miller) show it is more then reasonable to inductively conclude that naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible.
Wow, 50 years of research into the field as a hobby has convinced you that you are such an expert as to be omniscient? Or are you admitting that the dichotomy you are subjectively drawing is false?
Perhaps you have additional support, such as statistics showing a proportion of biologists being theists that is higher than the population average... but the truth is rather different isn't it.
slevesque writes:
And not only that, but how can you expect to be 'certain' and 'sure' of something if the prerequirement is that you have absolutely no basis for this. You can't.
This would tie into my position that faith is illogical. You are trying to equate faith with the same process by which normal decisions are made, which runs contrary to the entire concept of having a unique word describing the behavior.
We call Christianity a faith-based belief, while we don't call science faith-based. When the Bible tells people to have faith it is instructing a departure from the normal method of decision-making. Faith has always been used as a *counter* to different evidence-based conclusions.
The usage of faith is rather odd using that definition as well. Like when Matthew tells people if the only had faith as small as a mustard seed then they can move mountains... if they only have evidenced belief as small as a mustard seed? What sense does that make? Evidence as small as a mustard seed would be awfully tenuous evidence indeed, given that a handful of evidence to the contrary would replace such a belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by slevesque, posted 05-03-2010 5:39 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 149 of 227 (558939)
05-05-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by cavediver
05-03-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Duct Tape = ??
Woah - that's some huge confirmation bias at work just because we don't have the mechanism sorted for abiogenesis does not mean thart we are not massively further ahead than we were 50 years ago! Is quantum gravity also "impossible" because after well over 50 years of trying, we still don't have the answer?
It's not about the time involved, but what was actually discover. One year would have done the same thing, if all these discoveries would have been made in that span.
Imagine that in the research of quantum gravity, the more you researched through it, the bigger the problem grew. Even worse, the more it seemed to contradict other known and well-established theories. There would come a point where the idea would be abandoned.
I think this point has been reached in naturalistic abiogenesis. But because it is the crucial founding block of an atheist worldview, it put it in different position then a quantum physics theory. (That, coupled with the fact that mathematical physics theories will more easily be identified as contradictory for example)
To declare naturalistic abiogenesis as "impossible" suggests you have much to learn of science. To be taken seriously with such a comment you would have to have a thorough knowledge of the field, its arguments and propositions, and you would need robust counter-arguments against each, plus further arguments to suggest why no future research will yield solutions.
And if such a display of knowledge was presented to you, would you then become a theist ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by cavediver, posted 05-03-2010 6:25 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 05-05-2010 6:01 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 151 by cavediver, posted 05-05-2010 7:09 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 152 by Stile, posted 05-06-2010 8:18 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 153 by Stile, posted 05-06-2010 8:23 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 150 of 227 (558958)
05-05-2010 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by slevesque
05-05-2010 3:53 PM


A Tale of Two Theories
I think this point has been reached in naturalistic abiogenesis.
Those investigating abiogenesis disagree.
But because it is the crucial founding block of an atheist worldview, it put it in different position then a quantum physics theory.
Are all those investigating abiogenesis atheists?
And if such a display of knowledge was presented to you, would you then become a theist ?
We have two competing theories. One has indisputably resulted in a multitude of confirmed and corroborated results, a vast number of verified predictions, the advancement of human understanding and civilisation and has triumphed over the rival theory in every single one of the multitude of head to head encounters that has ever occurred.
The second theory in comparison has never once resulted in a confirmed or corroborated result, never once resulted in a verifiable prediction, never ever resulted in any demonstrable display of success at all and has in fact been beaten into retreat at every point it has come into conflict with it's rival theory. In addition there are objectively evidenced reasons to consider this pitiful failure of a theory to have been conceived of purely as the result of human psychological need to find meaning and explanation where only blind physical processes have ever been found to exist.
Which of the two theories do you put your money on to achieve success on the question of abiogenesis? Why is the second theory even in the running?
And if such a display of knowledge was presented to you, would you then become a theist ?
If such a display of knowledge regarding the failure, inadequacy and reasons for conception that are veracity independent were presented to you - Would you disown the supernatural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by slevesque, posted 05-05-2010 3:53 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024