Over at Shadow to Light came this article on 10 signs of intellectual honesty.
It’s well written and reasonable.
So it will be dismissed and reviled fundamentalists of all stripes.
Atheists, flat-earthers, hyper-Calvinists, Muslims, and Christians should care about intellectual honesty.
10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty
Michael: Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most.
ME: I need to be careful about using words like “destroyed” and “humiliated” in blogs and videos. Christians should not seek to “eviscerate atheists”.
Michael: Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.
ME: I should not say things like, “We just need to read the Bible.”
The Bible is not the ONLY source of wisdom. Scripture is not the ONLY revelation of God. And my interpretation of Scripture is not perfect.
Michael: Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. And all of us bring various biases to the table.
ME: I believe Mayonnaise sucks. It’s a despicable substance that diminishes joy everywhere it goes.
That is just ONE of my biases. It doesn’t affect my theology until we start discussing what items will exist in heaven.
Michael: Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.
ME: I believe God exists and has revealed Himself to all mankind. It’s weakness is very little empirical, verifiable evidence.
Anyone who says, “God didn’t reveal himself to me” has refuted my argument.
Michael: Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong.Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold.
ME: When I regularly practice the first four steps, I don’t often have to acknowledge being wrong.
Michael: Demonstrate consistency.A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards.
ME: The easiest way to detect inconsistency is to take my argument and apply it in a different circumstance.
EXAMPLE: “A woman should not be forced to deliver a baby she does not want.”
Applied to a different circumstance…
“A man should not be forced pay child support for a baby he does not want.”
Michael: Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty.
ME: Atheists are not devil worshipers. Christians are not brain-dead zombies. I need to listen to what is being said and pay no attention to who is saying it.
(Unless the person eats mayonnaise. Those people cannot be trusted…)
Michael: When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms.
ME: Sometimes, when I hear my argument stated by someone else, I realize it’s a bad argument. That’s when I should admit I am wrong.
Michael: Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.
ME: Even people who disagree with me aren’t wrong about EVERYTHING. Conceding a good point means I’m growing in wisdom. Refusing to acknowledge when someone else is right is petty and stupid.
10 Responses
Good article and we would do well to remember these things.
I really don’t know if I can trust people who don’t like mayonnaise? Regardless, intellectual honesty requires just a bit of intellectual humility. You do not know what you think you know. Or, don’t believe everything you think. These things are actually matters of the heart and not the brain.
Are you sure these are matters of the heart?
Or do you just think they are?
😉
I’m curious because I really don’t know how you’re drawing the distinction.
Ha! It’s because we people tend to usually believe we’re being rational 80% of the time and emotional 20%. The truth is actually reversed, we respond emotionally 80% of the time. This is why rhetoric, politics, and advertising work so well, they all exploit an appeal to our emotions. Then we quite rationally make the totally intellectual decision to, “choose Jiffy peanut butter because choosy moms always chose Jif.” Our brains are not like computers at all. When we are being intellectually dishonest it is always going to be because there is an emotional blockage preventing us from embracing the truth.
You may have noticed, but most atheists are not presenting well reasoned and intelligent arguments based logic and reason. They are usually just trying to mask their heart issues in alleged intellectual superiority.
“We’re being rational 80% of the time and emotional 20% of the time” sounds like a fact. But how do we know it isn’t something we absorbed for emotional reasons?
That’s what I’m asking.
We need to be careful not to say things which could lead to moral and intellectual relativism. (Things like “You do not know what you think you know.”) I understand you’re aiming for humility. And I agree we can’t trust either our thoughts or our feelings ALL the time.
But we HAVE been given a Guide who makes both of those more trustworthy.
“But how do we know it isn’t something we absorbed for emotional reasons?”
Absorbing something for emotional reasons is not necessarily bad. Just as absorbing something for intellectual reasons is not necessarily good. Just to use the words “intellectual honesty” is to imply both emotion and morality. Honesty is actually a moral value. Our intellect cannot regulate our morality, because absent the heart and absent God, it has no morality of it’s own. That is how we are able to reason our way to things like unborn people being meaningless clumps of cells.
Pro-choice people DON’T reason their way to unborn people being meaningless clumps of cells.
They FEEL they are meaningless, and then TELL themselves it’s intellectual. But if they were using the ability to reason, which God offers to all of us, then they wouldn’t arrive at that conclusion.
It’s well known in sales that people buy (make decisions) for emotional reasons and justify with the facts afterward. Heart issues are what drive us, even when we have all the facts in our favor. That doesn’t minimize the need for truth, it just shows why people make stupid choices even when armed with the facts.
As if any reasonable person should listen to a brainwashed mayonnaise-denier!
Do you even sandwich, bro?
I’m unsubscribing from this blog immediately!
(Sound of footsteps and then a door slamming)
I knew the mayonnaise comment would reveal the true friends.
Good riddance.