Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would like to think that my aversion to cognitive dissonance is worse than my need to protect core beliefs, because protecting core beliefs is an exhausting, never-ending job that just makes the dissonance progressively worse. There are two ways to escape cognitive dissonance -- hide from new information and protect the core belief, or change the core belief. I find the latter far less painful in the long run and even in the medium run. I feel that I am where I am because I'm willing to give up a pet belief before I'm willing to hide from new data.
In any case, I don't regard all of the exchanges here as pointless. I think you plant seeds in people and let life water them ... so long as you don't insist on seeing the end result in short order, as in people bowing to your "superior" reasoning in every thread, you can be content to plant seeds.
There are certain exceptions; I no longer bother to engage with certain people who prove themselves so enamored of their own ideologies that they just like to hear themselves talk / rant. There is a difference between people who simply can't see a point because they're presently unable to let go of a thought structure, and people who have that borderline personality "splitter" tendency where you can see that they're defending, not a core belief, but their "side" of things and their need to be "right".
I would like to think that my aversion to cognitive dissonance is worse than my need to protect core beliefs, because protecting core beliefs is an exhausting, never-ending job that just makes the dissonance progressively worse. There are two ways to escape cognitive dissonance -- hide from new information and protect the core belief, or change the core belief. I find the latter far less painful in the long run and even in the medium run. I feel that I am where I am because I'm willing to give up a pet belief before I'm willing to hide from new data.
I actually find that cognitive dissonance (which I will redefine) to be the most useful tool in progressing.
I have come to understand that we have an INNATE ability to discern truth. It resides in the soul. Not the mind, not the brain. The term cognitive dissonance naturally was coined by people who consider we have only a brain, and that you are struggling with conflicts there. In my opinion, and experience I think, the real dissonance is that between soul and mind. The mind is based on logic, and much beloved for that. Yet logic does no more than ensure consistency from the foundations up. It can't verify the foundation.
Why does the soul have an ability to discern truth without needing logic? Not sure but I think it is to do with the "Spirit of Truth", something mentioned in the Bible, but discarded by fundamentalists who don't stop to wonder why Jesus might suggest you need a tool to discern Truth.
I would like to think that my aversion to cognitive dissonance is worse than my need to protect core beliefs, because protecting core beliefs is an exhausting, never-ending job that just makes the dissonance progressively worse. There are two ways to escape cognitive dissonance -- hide from new information and protect the core belief, or change the core belief. I find the latter far less painful in the long run and even in the medium run.
Core beliefs are seldom wrong.
Its our interpretations of them and how we apply them that are wrong.
both atheists and theists have legitimate core beliefs.
I have come to understand that we have an INNATE ability to discern truth. It resides in the soul. Not the mind, not the brain. The term cognitive dissonance naturally was coined by people who consider we have only a brain, and that you are struggling with conflicts there. In my opinion, and experience I think, the real dissonance is that between soul and mind. The mind is based on logic, and much beloved for that. Yet logic does no more than ensure consistency from the foundations up. It can't verify the foundation.
Why does the soul have an ability to discern truth without needing logic? Not sure but I think it is to do with the "Spirit of Truth", something mentioned in the Bible, but discarded by fundamentalists who don't stop to wonder why Jesus might suggest you need a tool to discern Truth.
If there were an innate, universal "spirit of truth" worth its name, then everyone claiming to have the truth would objectively agree on what constitutes truth, and no one would need to go through "tests" or "trials" or suffering to become educated about it or worthy of it.
Well after I decided I had found "Truth" I asked spirit to show me the same "Truth" elsewhere, because I am certain (100% certain) that Truth is not limited, and has many faces. The challenge is to recognize those, because they don't necessarily look the same, you have to UNDERSTAND what lies behind things. But I eventually found enough other sources that contained the same fundamental Truth about the existence of Divine Love and its effects on the human soul, that I no longer care to search.
If you are certain you are right, I would recommend that approach. In fact I would go further and state that no single source has "all" Truth, whatever that means. There seems to be a Spiritual Law that limits the amount of revelation any one source can receive. And yes, that applies to what Jesus communicated too. We humans are meant to SHARE what we know, so we all advance. You just don't see that on forums like these, because at least one party believes it is 100% right, and in possession of ALL Truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristyGrl
TRUTH, like anything else, is relative and subjective to the person who believes it and accepts it. It is THEIR truth...not necessarily the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. I also don't think any source has the ABSOLUTE TRUTH...I don't believe our brains are even equipped to know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about our Source/Creator/Universal Consciousness/God, etc. We may have good ideas that get us closer to finding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH...but I'm not sure that it can be COMPLETELY known while we are in these physical bodies...my jury is out on that as yet.
It is forums like these, that may make someone take a look at their beliefs and truths and question them. There is ONE thing I am completely certain of...if someone claims that their truth is the ONLY truth and others must believe them...they haven't found it at all.
I constantly question what I am believing in and accepting as truth...which has evolved greatly over the years...and I will probably keep on learning for the rest of my life as new discoveries are made. So hang in there and share what you've learned...someone is always lurking and reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezlie
On a forum like this, when someone speaks of "truth", they are usually talking about spiritual "truth." When we talk about religion or spirituality, we are into the subjective world of the human mind where, based largely on our psychology, certain things will either strike a chord with us or not. That becomes what we call.. spiritual "truth."
That's different than the truths of nature and existence that science deals with. Very few people on this forum would say something like, "After much pondering, I've come to the conclusion that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is really 3.6840 and not 3.1415. I believe that's the truth." Truths of nature can be shown to be correct or incorrect.
The problem is when you take a spiritual or religious truth and you try to authenticate it like it was a truth of nature. It then becomes like someone saying, "My lover is the most beautiful person in the world. Prove to me that they are not." Or, "My religion is the true religion."
I'll leave it there for now.
There is a lot of wisdom and insight in these posts. They deserve significant consideration and thought. Thank you brothers and sisters.
If there were an innate, universal "spirit of truth" worth its name, then everyone claiming to have the truth would objectively agree on what constitutes truth, and no one would need to go through "tests" or "trials" or suffering to become educated about it or worthy of it.
Its not that simple, because this seems to be only something that responds to real desire to know truth. But your point is well made, because I have had the experience of holding different views to others who would claim that they too had discerned what their soul was "telling" them.
Actually, I think learning to discern truth is probably the most valuable "asset" one can acquire on this earth. But I agree, I wish it appeared more universal. However, I do rely on "my way" and am happy with it. And I don't get bothered that others disagree. Its an opportunity for reflection, that's all. Once (almost in a past life) I "relied" on the fact that Catholicism was the oldest and largest branch, and my mother, grandmother etc had all been happy to accept what it taught. So I have changed a heck of a lot, as I walk my path alone. Happy to have company along the way, but usually its not for much of the journey. :-)
Actually, I think learning to discern truth is probably the most valuable "asset" one can acquire on this earth.
On that we can agree, I suspect; whether or not you think there is given truth with a capital T, as it were, regardless of its exact nature, truth is the only thing worth having and the ability to discern it is beyond price. And after that comes the need for wisdom, as truth is only data, not the ability to work with it.
And sadly, irrespective of belief, folks are typically WEDDED to that belief. Even real scientists have this problem, even the smartest we ever had, Einstein did not like some things that his mind pointed to.
Individual scientists - even some of the finest such as you have exampled - can be just as open or close minded as any other human. There is nothing special or magical about scientists at all. They are average people like any other and are subject to all the same issues of ego - arrogance - and more as anyone else.
It is not individual scientists that are important though but the process of science itself which - as a whole - is the best tool we have for weeding out bias - close mindedness - arrogance and so forth.
Contrast this to theism which seems to be more about maintaining dogma than anything else. In science one is credited for proving others wrong. One can even be credited and rewarded for proving oneself wrong. Even repeatedly. In religion however one is treated as if "faith" is a vitue and beleiving things with no basis or - worse - in the face of contradictory evidence is a good thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
