reply to post by Bleeeeep
No, I'm not stuck on the wording of Cognitive Dissonance
. I happen to know what it
Additionally, your examples regarding childhood things taken on faith have zero validity with me.
I was an assertive, willful, curious child.
Condemnations like "NO" and "DON'T" were invitations (to me) to explore.
Thus, my parents took the YES, BUT ... approach.
Mom: "Before you touch the stove Druscilla, would you like to see what will happen to your little fingers when/if you do touch it?"
Me: *wide eyed nod of piqued curiosity with possibly a peep of assent*
Mom: "Okay, lets pretend this hotdog is one of your fingers".
*Mom takes hotdog with tongs and presses hotdog onto hot stove*
*hotdog makes sizzling noises and wiffs of smoke rise*
*Mom pulls hotdog away from stove and shows the results*
Mom: "You see those black marks? Those are burns, so, what do you think will happen if you touch the stove with your fingers?"
I was allowed, and even encouraged to (safely) explore the limitations and boundaries of my childhood environment and understanding of it as i
developed and grew.
I was very often, where I didn't already learn a lesson through direct experience, given the treat of observation in being shown empirical evidence of
what would/could happen if I did X activity.
I had proof, and where I didn't, I sought it out. I required no faith. Further I was encouraged to supply proofs/accountability for my actions, so,
there wasn't much room for lies, embroidery, and story telling.
If some kid pushed me into a puddle of mud and got my clothes dirty, I'd either have to supply a confession from the kid that did it, whereby parents
then talk to other parents and all the joys that comes with that etc, or, I take responsibility for my muddy clothes and ensure that they are properly
cleaned in the laundry.
Anybody can tell stories, just as I've done right now.
Believe, or not.
Were I you, I'd require more than such an anecdote, but, since you're a professed adherent to faith, you're somewhat obliged to take anything I say on
Whatever the case, this lack of empirical evidence you make claims about is thin gruel.
You take medicines (if you take medicines) because they're tested, regulated by Federal Quality control, and are vouchsafed through rigorous testing
and approval to do what they claim to do.
You can, of course also pray, but, then, how strong is your faith compared to your degree of ail versus immediacy of need to not have a runny nose at
the office tomorrow, as well as get some sleep?
Would you trust your faith in the legitimacy to 'medicine' sold by some shady guy behind the pharmacy, or, would your rather trust in the rigid
testing, standardization, regulation, quality control, and tested effectiveness advertised on the shelves inside the pharmacy?
I'm fairly certain I know the answer. Regardless, you rely less on faith than you think you do, relying on empirical data for decision making every
Sure, you fly the faith flag, but, I'm fairly certain there's a large number of things you'd never take on faith, or even personal guarantee alone.
We all require proof.
A number of us are simply more rigidly demanding in our tolerances, especially when it approaches anything resembling subject matter of the fantastic.
As a matter of mundanity,I'll have faith that the organic beef burger I order for lunch is as advertised, but, faith in fairies, ghosts, UFOs, demons,
other mythological cartoon characters? I'm going to need poke it with a stick.
edit on 25-11-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)