Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.......

All of which strongly tells us that relying on the physical evidence rather than interpreting myths is the way to go.

What beliefs would you say you are committed to? The validity of subjective immaterial evidence maybe?

You and I seem to have fairly impassioned conversations about things which in other contexts we are both comparatively apathetic about then. I think a creationist would say the same. I would suggest that the difference between you and they is the evidence upon which you rationalise that commitment. They care whether the flud happened. You don't. My question to you is whether or not you are similarly committed to an evidential basis of any sort. And if so what it is. It makes total sense. That is exactly how I see it too.What makes less sense is the argument that this personal preference should be taken into account by others when looking at the evidence. You and I (and others) have argued ourselves blue in the face over the question of gods as being the product of human invention or otherwise. In the course of that extended discussion personal experiences of this sort have been consistently held up as a valid form of evidence that I (and others lacking faith) are accused of being too closed minded and pseudo-skeptical to accept.But I see it (and have always seen it) as you seem to be suggesting now. I see it as the objective evidence favoring gods as human inventions Vs faith based personal preference.I can understand why you might believe in god having had such experiences. What I cannot understand is why you would object to me stating that the evidence based conclusion is that the concept of god is most likely the product of human imagination.Unless you are in fact committed to personal subjective immaterial experiences as a valid form of evidence?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I agree.It is those who at root consider the beliefs to which they are committed to be evidenced who are putting themselves up for potential CD. Those who don't care about evidence either way are going to be largely immune.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am asking if there is an evidential basis to your beliefs which, if demonstrated to be invalid, would cause you cognitive dissonance. Crazy? No. I think they/you are irrationally placing personal conviction and personal preference over objective evidence. So you consider belief itself to be a valid form of evidence? I don't believe I ever have. In the same sense that I would not dispute your personal preference for chocolate over strawberry ice cream as being personally "evidenced". I am not eliminating any possibilities either. I never have. In fact I have explicitly stated the very opposite of that which you are accusing me. Good. Then what conclusion does the evidence available to me suggest? You don't think that (to put it in the broadest of senses) there is evidence that humanity is highly prone to erroneously invoking the unknowable to explain the unknown? Yes. Things that do not conflict with your own beliefs. Would it cause you cognitive dissonance to accept that the objective evidence supports the argument that the concept of god is a human invention?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Is there any objective evidence at all in support of your theistic beliefs?

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)

On balance which conclusion is best evidenced?

Would it cause you cognitive dissonance to accept that a contradictory conclusion is better evidenced than the one you believe in?

​

Please note I am not talking about proof. I am simply asking what evidence you think exists and, on balance, which conclusion you consider to be best evidenced.

​

Straggler writes:

​

I am asking if there is an evidential basis to your beliefs which, if demonstrated to be invalid, would cause you cognitive dissonance.

​

What do you mean by an "evidential basis"?

​

The personal experiences that you cite as supporting your belief - Aside from your personal belief there is no more reason to attribute the cause of these experiences to god as there is to magic moonbeams, fluctuations in the matrix or indeed any other empirically unknowable scenario we could conceive of.

​

Do you accept this?

​

Straggler writes:

​

So you consider belief itself to be a valid form of evidence?

​

Not just the belief itself, its that people have thought it out and investigated it and come to that conclusion that makes me think its more plausible.

​

"Investigated"?

​

Every shred of objective evidence available to us indicates that the universe operates without any need for supernatural intervention. The question of why humans believe in (and even experience) gods is a natural phenomenon requiring explanation the same as any other. Why do you think the supernatural answer to this question (i.e. that gods actually exist) will fare any better than any of the other supernatural answers erroneously posited by humanity to explain other natural phenomenon?

​

Although, I don't think the liklihood that you use logically follows from the evidence.

​

RAZD (and you too previously although thankfully no more) relentlessly translate everything I say into imbecilic black and white TRUE or FALSE statements of logical certitude. I think this is because he just doesn't have an adequate answer to the argument that the best evidenced conclusion should be considered the most likely to be correct. If you do I would be delighted to hear it?

​

Straggler writes:

​

I don't believe I ever have. In the same sense that I would not dispute your personal preference for chocolate over strawberry ice cream as being personally "evidenced".

​

Discounted in the sense that you think I'm irrational for accepting it as a reason to believe.

​

I don't consider my personal preferences to be "beliefs". I don't consider my personal preferences to be derived from evidence as such. Nor would I say my personal preferences are rational. You seem to be comparing chalk and cheese.

Where there is a conflict between physical evidence and biblical text would you always advocate that the text is simply re-interpreted?

What determines which cases you will and which you won't? How can "all avenues of understanding the text" ever be exhausted? Surely it can be interpreted in a near infinite number of different ways. Do not most Christians consider much of the bible metaphorical? But whose interpretation of the bible? Yours? The majority of Christians see no conflict between the bible and evolution.Why do you consider your interpretation as superior to theirs?

But shouldn't that interpretation equally take into account the level scientific and geographical knowledge of the authors?

How have you reached the conclusion that it is impossible? I think you will be hard pressed to find an atheist who says that the existence of god is impossible. I think "highly improbable" is about as much as you will get. Atheists tend to be very wary of absolute certainty.Are you wedded to your "impossible" stance? Or would improbable suffice? Every shred of objective evidence available to us indicates that the universe operates without any need for supernatural intervention. Why do you think the supernatural answer to the question of abiogenesis will fly in the face of this evidence and fare any better than any of the other supernatural explanations previously posited for observed phenomenon?Or is that where the whole faith thing comes into play?

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. 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? 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? 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? Any which can demonstrate itself as leading to conclusions which are demonstrably superior to blind chance. 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.

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. Ah so you are essentially a proponent of a god of the gaps then.

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.

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? 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.