Is Intellectual Honesty a Religious Virtue?

[Cephus]

I'm pretty sure I specified the definition of faith I was referring to from the outset. Faith in the 'trust' definition is not incompatible with intellectual hponesty.

I hope that clear s it up.

It depends on how you use the word "trust". What is that trust based on? How is it verified? How do we know that the source of this information in which someone is having faith is actually trustworthy? That has a lot to do with intellectual honesty, people who simply accept something because it is emotionally comforting, not because it is rationally defensible, are not being intellectually honest.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think you (Cephus, and also bunny; I said something similar in the earlier response to bunny) may be conflating holding rationality as a highest principle with honesty. As far as I am able, I am honest about the intellectual status of the beliefs that lay underneath my way of life. I attempt to avoid claims to knowledge where they are unjustified, and I attempt to explore evidence and arguments in an honest way. That is intellectual honesty. On the other hand, my understanding of my life is not fully rational, although I believe it is not thereby immediately irrational. Strict rationality or epistemological justification are not the ultimate criteria by which I live. I don't believe this can be considered dishonest without distorting the normal meaning of the word, and drifting away from the practical meaning of the phrase intellectual honesty.

 

[tkdrocks]

Do any of the world's religions explicitly uphold intellectual honesty as a virtue? If so, please quote where they do that, or explain how and in what manner they do that. Also, why they do that? That is, what value or values do they see in intellectual honesty.

Per the revealed religions, of course not. They would intellectually position themselves right out of existence. The whole premise for these religions is to pass on an un-provable assertion witnessed by people that may not have even existed. If you don't faithfully accept the assertions then you do not get to participate in the sky cake.

 

[Bunyip]

I think you (Cephus, and also bunny; I said something similar in the earlier response to bunny) may be conflating holding rationality as a highest principle with honesty. As far as I am able, I am honest about the intellectual status of the beliefs that lay underneath my way of life. I attempt to avoid claims to knowledge where they are unjustified, and I attempt to explore evidence and arguments in an honest way. That is intellectual honesty. On the other hand, my understanding of my life is not fully rational, although I believe it is not thereby immediately irrational. Strict rationality or epistemological justification are not the ultimate criteria by which I live. I don't believe this can be considered dishonest without distorting the normal meaning of the word, and drifting away from the practical meaning of the phrase intellectual honesty.

The bits that you say are not strictly rational are where you suspend your critical thinking - they are the parts where you are not being intellectually honest with yourself.

 

[Bunyip]

If by faith you mean blind belief in something completely beyond the grasp of reason, and by religion you mean the superficial rituals, dogmas, and practices of the myriad sectarian groups we've created, then I'd agree.

But I don't define religion or faith in that way, so I've come to the opposite conclusion: intellectual honesty is at the core of faith and is the foundation of religion, but it is completely incompatible with dogmatism of any type, which relies heavily on the preservation of ignorance.

Faith, in my experience, is the outgrowth and synthesis of observation, experience, intuition, imparted knowledge and reason.

I do love the idea of simply inventing your own word meanings in debate, but it leaves me no useful response. I could say; "Well yes! That is true if you define 'banana' in the traditional sense! But I define 'banana' as the sound a mouse makes when it farts - then you are clearly wrong!" It is essentially a pretty pointless approach.

It's something that relates equally to most aspects of human life from the intellectual to the interpersonal and emotional. We explore the universe (and ourselves) with the faith that the universe can be known—that the laws of physics can be trusted to perform in particular ways. We engage in relationships with others with the faith that we are loved and that our love for them has value.

Faith, to me, is just a response to something that you interact with enough to have expectations of. You have faith that a friend will meet you for lunch at the appointed hour today because he has always done so before—barring accident. You have faith that if you let go of the tennis ball you hold in your hand, it will drop and bounce—barring a gust of wind, which you can have faith will blow your tennis ball into the next court. You have faith that the God that has been sending Emissaries since before we recorded those events will continue to do so, because He has said He will and because He has always done it. Within that, you have faith that certain principles will be at the center of each revelation because they have always been and you can have faith that some social mores will change because—evolution.

Faith in God no more excludes analysis than does Einstein's faith in the intuition that bore fruit in the statement that E=mc2.

Of course it excludes intellectual analysis, gods are mythological. There is no evidence for the esistence of gods. Moreover the entire concept is fanciful.

I do not believe something because someone told me it was so. I do not believe because I feel it intuitively. I do not believe because I have observed things in the universe and within myself that suggest belief is warranted. I do not believe something because I can see it, touch it, hear it or sense it physically (our senses are easily fooled). I believe something, as I said, because of a synthesis of those things and because I have the rational faculty necessary to take that input and analyze it in the light of other things that I have established to be true.

"The third teaching or principle of Bahá’u’lláh is that religion and science are in complete agreement. Every religion which is not in accordance with established science is superstition. Religion must be reasonable. If it does not square with reason, it is superstition and without foundation. It is like a mirage, which deceives man by leading him to think it is a body of water. God has endowed man with reason that he may perceive what is true. If we insist that such and such a subject is not to be reasoned out and tested according to the established logical modes of the intellect, what is the use of the reason which God has given man?" (Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, from a
25 April 1912 talk in Washington DC)

Cheers. I was referring to faith as defined in the bible.

 

[lovemuffin]

The bits that you say are not strictly rational are where you suspend your critical thinking - they are the parts where you are not being intellectually honest with yourself.

I'm fairly sure you're saying things you can't possibly know to be true. Which doesn't mean they aren't true! But in a thread about intellectual honesty...

I expect that you assume that the "non-rational bits" (a very technical term I've coined ) must necessarily involve suspension of critical thinking because of certain assumptions you make about the nature of reality. But critical thinking and reason can't answer definitively the question about the ultimate nature of what is real, or whether reality extends beyond what is intelligible or knowable by reason. I do not believe that I suspend my critical thinking, I think I'm reasonably well aware of the various arguments in favor of anti-theistic conclusions. I've always been fascinated by all these sorts of things.

I can't demonstrate the truth of my assertion about my honesty beyond whatever you can infer from what I post, nor can I even claim any real certainty about fully knowing my own inner motivations and processes, but I don't imagine there is a practical way for you to prove your assertion either. I think you're reaching farther than is reasonable if you want to call me intellectually dishonest merely for having religious faith. In any case, I'm not sure there's any good way to proceed from here.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm fairly sure you're saying things you can't possibly know to be true. Which doesn't mean they aren't true! But in a thread about intellectual honesty...

An unevidenced belief is not intellectually honest.

I expect that you assume that the "non-rational bits" (a very technical term I've coined ) must necessarily involve suspension of critical thinking because of certain assumptions you make about the nature of reality.

No, it is nmot an assumption, it is that there is no evidence for them.

But critical thinking and reason can't answer definitively the question about the ultimate nature of what is real, or whether reality extends beyond what is intelligible or knowable by reason. I do not believe that I suspend my critical thinking, I think I'm reasonably well aware of the various arguments in favor of anti-theistic conclusions. I've always been fascinated by all these sorts of things.

I can't demonstrate the truth of my assertion about my honesty beyond whatever you can infer from what I post, nor can I even claim any real certainty about fully knowing my own inner motivations and processes, but I don't imagine there is a practical way for you to prove your assertion either. I think you're reaching farther than is reasonable if you want to call me intellectually dishonest merely for having religious faith. In any case, I'm not sure there's any good way to proceed from here.

I don't think that you are at all dishonest - let me make that clear. You are being very polite, intelligent and sincere.
I think that we ALL suspend our critical thinking in some areas of our lives.

 

[stevevw]

Jesus stood for honesty and the truth. That was His main teaching. He said I am the way, THE TRUTH and the life. He exposed the Pharisees for their dishonest ways stating that they like to look good on the outside by saying and doing all the right things that looked good in the sights of others. But inside they were full of corruption and their hearts were hiding lies. There are many quotes, examples and teachings in the bible and directly from Jesus that speak about honesty. Jesus talks about the light that shines in the darkness meaning that it shines a light on peoples true intentions and exposes evil ways. Nothing can be hidden in the darkness when the light of God shines on it. Jesus lights the way to truth and life.
John 8:31-32
So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Luke 11:34
Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is bad, your body is full of darkness.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[Cephus]

I think you (Cephus, and also bunny; I said something similar in the earlier response to bunny) may be conflating holding rationality as a highest principle with honesty. As far as I am able, I am honest about the intellectual status of the beliefs that lay underneath my way of life. I attempt to avoid claims to knowledge where they are unjustified, and I attempt to explore evidence and arguments in an honest way. That is intellectual honesty. On the other hand, my understanding of my life is not fully rational, although I believe it is not thereby immediately irrational. Strict rationality or epistemological justification are not the ultimate criteria by which I live. I don't believe this can be considered dishonest without distorting the normal meaning of the word, and drifting away from the practical meaning of the phrase intellectual honesty.

Taking the position that something is true when it cannot be demonstrated to be true or supported with objective evidence, that's not something to be proud of, I'm afraid and it certainly isn't intellectually honest. Those things taken on faith really need to be investigated rationally and tested objectively to see if they are supported in any intellectual way. If they do not and you continue to believe, especially if you know that you really have no basis upon which to have that belief, then that's not intellectually honest either.

 

[Kenny]

Do any of the world's religions explicitly uphold intellectual honesty as a virtue? If so, please quote where they do that, or explain how and in what manner they do that. Also, why they do that? That is, what value or values do they see in intellectual honesty.

In that some scriptures say "thou shalt not lie" or other such statements, implies that honesty is a virtue. The declaration is self evident.

But I am intrigued by the question. Is there a religion where it extols lying and lack of intellectual honesty?

 

[Mercurio]

I don't know much about Judaism, but my impression is that, generally speaking, it rather highly values intellectual honesty. Does anyone want to speak to that?

Yes, David says speaks of being willing to swear to one's own hurt in Psalm 15.

Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? . . . He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

One of my heroes is Judah who admitted quickly when Tamar was in the right. Why argue if you're wrong? It's easier to admit you're wrong and then move on.

 

[asier9]

Do any of the world's religions explicitly uphold intellectual honesty as a virtue? If so, please quote where they do that, or explain how and in what manner they do that. Also, why they do that? That is, what value or values do they see in intellectual honesty.

Yes of course Catholicism recognizes intellectually honesty as a virtue. It is assumed to be such a basic value that the Catechism did not even address it specifically. Here however is what the Catechism does say about journalism which goes to the same point (CCC 2497): By the very nature of their profession, journalists, have an obligation to serve the truth and not offend against charity in disseminating information. They should strive to respect, with equal care, the nature of the facts and the limits of critical judgement concerning individuals . They should not stoop to defamation.

 

[asier9]

In that some scriptures say "thou shalt not lie" or other such statements, implies that honesty is a virtue. The declaration is self evident.

But I am intrigued by the question. Is there a religion where it extols lying and lack of intellectual honesty?

Yes Islam. To deceive Kaffar (plural form, usually translated as non-believers but is actually much more derogatory; meaning something akin to bottom class citizens in the Islamic state) about the nature of Islam is actually considered a sacred act and known as taqiyya.... Now given what I've written above in my previous post this may be seen as defamation or at the very least uncharitable. I have lots of Muslim friends and have spent much time in the Mideast. I care about many Muslims as individuals. However I believe it is important for us all to learn more about the political dimensions of Islam, and what I've said is factually correct and intellectually honest.

 

[lovemuffin]

Taking the position that something is true when it cannot be demonstrated to be true or supported with objective evidence, that's not something to be proud of, I'm afraid and it certainly isn't intellectually honest.

You seem to have skipped over the part where I wrote that "I attempt to avoid claims to knowledge where they are unjustified".

 

[Nakosis]

Fourth Buddhist Precept ( basically a code of ethics for Buddhists)

"Do not make false statements." (Also includes pretending to know something one doesn't)

... There is the case where a certain person, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty, if he is asked as a witness, "Come & tell, good man, what you know": If he doesn't know, he says, "I don't know." If he does know, he says, "I know." If he hasn't seen, he says, "I haven't seen." If he has seen, he says, "I have seen." Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech.

Five Precepts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cephus]

You seem to have skipped over the part where I wrote that "I attempt to avoid claims to knowledge where they are unjustified".

But you still believe that the things that you believe are true, whether you state it that way or not. That's inherent in any system of belief. I've seen people who will say "I never claim that I'm right", but by saying they believe a thing, that's exactly what they are arguing, otherwise they wouldn't believe it in the first place. Beliefs inherently imply correctness.

 

[Kenny]

Yes Islam. To deceive Kaffar (plural form, usually translated as non-believers but is actually much more derogatory; meaning something akin to bottom class citizens in the Islamic state) about the nature of Islam is actually considered a sacred act and known as taqiyya.... Now given what I've written above in my previous post this may be seen as defamation or at the very least uncharitable. I have lots of Muslim friends and have spent much time in the Mideast. I care about many Muslims as individuals. However I believe it is important for us all to learn more about the political dimensions of Islam, and what I've said is factually correct and intellectually honest.

I had completely about taqiyya. Thanks for sharing.

 

[lovemuffin]

But you still believe that the things that you believe are true, whether you state it that way or not. That's inherent in any system of belief. I've seen people who will say "I never claim that I'm right", but by saying they believe a thing, that's exactly what they are arguing, otherwise they wouldn't believe it in the first place. Beliefs inherently imply correctness.

Sure, but the definition of intellectual honesty is not "holding a belief that P without knowing that P." Intellectual honesty is about the way in which beliefs are formed and held, not their epistemological status. Misrepresenting the epistemological status of a belief (claiming knowledge when it is not reasonable to claim knowledge) would be dishonest, as I said, but merely holding beliefs which do not rise to the level of knowledge is not inherently dishonest.

So for example we might agree that, using a definition of justification that requires objective evidence, it is not possible to know that Jesus existed as a historical person. Nevertheless, the majority of experts in the field (although not all) believe that there was such an historical person. They believe that to be true, based on evidence which is not sufficient for justification. Many people who hold this belief are atheists. It would be wrong to consider them intellectually dishonest. It would also be wrong to describe that belief as "faith", either in the sense of "belief without evidence" (there is evidence), or in any religious sense. But part of the original point was that "belief without evidence" is not actually the definition of faith in the Christian tradition, either biblically or otherwise.

 

[Cephus]

Sure, but the definition of intellectual honesty is not "holding a belief that P without knowing that P." Intellectual honesty is about the way in which beliefs are formed and held, not their epistemological status. Misrepresenting the epistemological status of a belief (claiming knowledge when it is not reasonable to claim knowledge) would be dishonest, as I said, but merely holding beliefs which do not rise to the level of knowledge is not inherently dishonest.

Nope. Here's the definition of "intellectual honesty": an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways: One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth.

Once again, we get the religious trying desperately to redefine terms so their own beliefs don't look quite so absurd. We see this with their redefinition of "faith" and "belief" and "knowledge" and "reason", none of which mean what they want them to mean.

Nor do I agree that holding beliefs which do not rise to the level of knowledge isn't inherently dishonest. Certainly, we may not know a great many things. That doesn't mean that we get to just make up solutions to problems that we cannot otherwise answer. The only credible answer to questions without answers is "I don't know". Religion is irrational.

So for example we might agree that, using a definition of justification that requires objective evidence, it is not possible to know that Jesus existed as a historical person. Nevertheless, the majority of experts in the field (although not all) believe that there was such an historical person. They believe that to be true, based on evidence which is not sufficient for justification. Many people who hold this belief are atheists. It would be wrong to consider them intellectually dishonest. It would also be wrong to describe that belief as "faith", either in the sense of "belief without evidence" (there is evidence), or in any religious sense. But part of the original point was that "belief without evidence" is not actually the definition of faith in the Christian tradition, either biblically or otherwise.

No, actually, virtually none believe that the Jesus as described in the Bible was a real person. There may have been a real person at the center of the myth, but that's not the Biblical Jesus, that's someone upon whom the mantle of godhood was posthumously draped. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Biblical Jesus ever existed. To think that he did was a complete leap of irrationality. Because we have no evidence, it is not logical to believe it at all. It is intellectually dishonest. It would be a different thing if we had evidence for a real Jesus. We do not.

 

[lovemuffin]

Your definition is just a restatement of mine, and I referenced that definition earlier in the thread. The definition references method (I said "the way in which beliefs are formed"), bias and attitude (I said "the way in which beliefs are held"). It is a non-sequitur to suggest that the criteria "personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth" means that faith is dishonest, because faith does not entail in any direct logical way an interference with the pursuit of truth. That also happens to be the least concrete of the four criteria listed in the definition, and the one most amenable to hearing in many different ways. I would suggest that the 3 other points in the wikipedia definition are an exposition of what it means for personal beliefs to interfere in the pursuit of truth. But faith does not entail omitting or misrepresenting facts or arguments, or ignoring work, or plagiarism, or any similar concrete thing.

Also, I am not redefining terms. I have been using "belief", "knowledge", and "justification" in just the way I believe you would use them, and I've been doing so quite intentionally. I have not tried to suggest for example that the subjective evidence of personal mystical experience could count towards justification. On the other hand, when it has been suggested that the Biblical definition of faith is "belief without evidence", that is in fact no where found in the Bible, and is very much a redefinition.

No, actually, virtually none believe that the Jesus as described in the Bible was a real person.

I didn't say that they did. The term "historical Jesus" means just the idea that an actual person existed, not that the Biblical characterization is accurate in any way. You've grossly misunderstood the claim I'm making here, and you might want to review the wiki on the historicity of Jesus, which states that "there is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically", which is not at all the same thing as saying that the description of Jesus in the Bible is accurate.