What if you were wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, how did you end up making this kind of leap ...



???



To do what a second time?



No decent human being could do that, and it is good you cannot.

Personally, I am most willing to listen to others while aware my own approach to life might be failing me ...

... and welcome to WP!

AG: My response shouldn't be read as a refutation of intellectual honesty, but rather that of intellectual honesty as a qualification for acceptance to and by God. Keep in mind that MOST of the world isn't quite that well-educated or concerned about being free from bias.

My particular academic area, music composition, is often appallingly biased and emotionally charged by nature. The high modernists champion Schoenberg and Webern and have a history of demanding that student composers write in that style. The postmodernists tend to lean towards just about any kind of random disunity they can come up with, outright revivalism, or (even better) a blend of the two (note the sarcasm). While this generally works well for musical study, you won't find that approach encouraged in, say, biology or mathematics (not meaning to imply that biologists and mathematicians aren't passionate about what they do). If you were a composition student in one of the better schools from the 1960's through the 1980's, you might be accused of intellectual dishonesty or, as we like to say, a lack of artistic integrity if you didn't readily adopt some variant of Schoenbergian serialism. My own composition mentor was a product of that teaching and sought to pass it on to his own students. It just so happened that I already had a love for music written using that methodology, else I would have chosen a different place to study.

You brought up intellectual honesty as an example, so I just went with it. I'd have made the same or similar argument for any other example.

I think there is a real difference. When I consider the various cultural links that I have with other people, my nationalities (Canadian and British), my religion (Judaism), my sexuality (gay), my neurology (Aspie), my ethnicities (Scottish and Cornish), my professions (medicine and public service), all of them provide me with certain lenses about how I see and respond to the world.

But it is the religious lens that more than any other invites me to be self-reflective, to consider my conduct and to aspire to a higher moral standard for myself.

That's not to say that you can't be a "good" person without religion--far from it. Neither is it to suggest that every person of faith is motivated to self improvement.

But there is an intersection of religion and reason, and in that intersection I do believe that there is value.

That's a very good observation, Awesomelyglorious. But for my part I don't think that the supernatural is an essential component.

I think there is a real difference between these various cultural links. When I consider the various cultural links that I have with other people, my nationalities (Canadian and British), my religion (Judaism), my sexuality (gay), my neurology (Aspie), my ethnicities (Scottish and Cornish), my professions (medicine and public service), all of them provide me with certain lenses about how I see and respond to the world.

But it is the religious lens that more than any other invites me to be self-reflective, to consider my conduct and to aspire to a higher moral standard for myself.

That's not to say that you can't be a "good" person without religion--far from it. Neither is it to suggest that every person of faith is motivated to self improvement.

But there is an intersection of religion and reason, and in that intersection I do believe that there is value.

Not really. It just that most theories about the world can only be believed at once or not at all because its parts depend on each other.


I had no other choice. I didn't want to believe that every effort in this world would be destroyed one day but there was nothing could I say against physics. After this I also started to doubt other things I never had a good explanation for. Afterlife for example. (Which is a good reason to be sad. It equals: "You have cancer! You will die in 100 Years!")

Many religious people do seem to have all-or-nothing packages to sell, but I have learned to shy away from being forced to exclusively pick any one of them. Rather, I have learned to just sift through all things as best I can while culling the trash -- You ought to see the deck of a shrimp boat after a net has been hauled and a tail bag opened! -- then sift and sort some more until some pieces at least seem to worth keeping ... and that is likely how I will spend the remainder of my life while knowing I do not have to know exactly what is ahead in order to stick around and hang in for just long enough to actually get there myself.

well, the problem is the criteria in which one handles the evidence, such as wether you accept any claimed evidence as valid or not, in order for you to admit you are wrong, usually that is a problem because of personal bias, so I tend to be skeptic towards claims like that, I mean, I also like to claim that evidence will change my beliefs, but the issue is wether one is actually willing to accept "objectively" anything that goes against one's belief as claimed, as usually, people would tend to convince themselves that the evidence isn't valid or that it doesn't fit the crime, or that it cannot be, etc. Given cognitive biases, I find this a bit difficult to actually accomplish.


The problem is that, usually, stubborn people believe they are right

----

How two different non-profit, tax-exempt religions work:

God is on your side, not mine vs God is on my side, not yours.

Your God is stronger than my God vs My God is stronger than your God.

---

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/you- ... water.html

---

Not Invented Here (Here = Salt Lake City, Utah - Mecca, Saudi Arabia - Rome, Italy etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here (syndrome)
http://www.beliefnet.com

---

Question: Is True Religion a line of denim jeans?

What would Buddha say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian_Tan_Buddha

You know, I tend to connect fideism with intellectual dishonesty, or even say that likely, fideism is synonymous to intellectual dishonesty.

Rejecting reason, empiricism and logic over faith doesn't make sense, and that is the least honest and proper way on the pursuit of truth.

Greenblue: Apparently you don't really pay attention to anything other than mindless quote-mining to prove whatever point you're trying to make. Here is an abbreviated response I made to AG, right here, just for you:

Basing it on your entire post and earlier posts, you seem to appeal to faith and reject anything else, or that has been practically your defense, and as AG stated, you seem to show through your latest posts, some sort of skepticism towards anything, such as intellectual criticism and empiricism that conflicts with your own belief, and the idea that "human" reason fails or must fail if that conflicts with some notions of God, and your support for Pascal's wager so that seems to indicate the notion that you seem to appeal to fideism somehow or that it is probably a cop-out, and fideism is absurd.

Well, ok, but you didn't provide a refutation of this, and did more to attack the possibility of intellectual integrity. Frankly, I could say that there is a non-zero chance that God prefers people who make sausages as opposed to any other kind of person. The issue is that I don't see how you intend to refute this using a Pascal's wager framework, or anything similar. Instead, what I would expect is that you will be unduly charitable to a gross degree towards your own ideas, and unduly critical to a gross degree towards that which you disagree with. Now, in human beings, this is to be expected somewhat, but at some points, it seems a bit extreme.


"A lack of artistic integrity" is not the same as "intellectual dishonesty". Even further, I am not sure that music composition is one of those areas where accusations of intellectual dishonesty applies, unless music makes more truth-claims than I am aware of.


That's the issue, I know you probably would make the same argument, regardless of what example I used.

Look, my point is that there is a time and place for human reason. AG's point was to attack Pascal's Wager by questioning what other possibilities there might be. For example, does God value "intellectual honesty" above all else? If so, then placing faith in Christ has no bearing on the eternal destiny of the soul.

My point is that "Intellectual Honesty" cannot possibly a demand or condition of God for salvation. The reason why is that, if it does, then we have no way of attaining such knowledge of what it is that God demands of us to be "intellectually honest." "Honesty" is judged by standards. In human terms, this is a standard that is applied to academia. But since relatively few people are really concerned with academia, and not all academicians are in agreement of what God demands, then there is way we can rely on any amount of honesty, intellectual or otherwise, that can "get" someone into heaven.

Human academicians can argue all day long about what such honesty IS. I mean, sure, you can use the definition and terms on Wikipedia. But the problem is that it's difficult to say that EVERY viewpoint is arrived at through purely objective means. Further, who says that the person who came up with "the rules" for intellectual honesty was even honest themselves? You're just assuming that they fit the ideal or that all academic assertions do so as well. There is NO reason whatsoever to believe that any of them perfectly fit any ideal UNLESS you're willing to lower your standards.

So if we fail to meet human standards, what makes you think we can meet God's standards?

That's why human reasoning fails at reconciling humanity with God. Standards are inconsistent and aren't even themselves upheld PERFECTLY.

God's standards of intellectual honesty don't work, either, the reason being we either fail to uphold those standards or we don't even know what they are.

The conclusion is that reconciliation is impossible for us acting on our own. However, God DOES reconcile Himself with us through the Son, if we accept that on faith.

My statements have nothing to do with fideism. You're just taking my statements out of context, otherwise you'd recognize that I do place a high value on academic honesty and scientific study.

I mean, if we really want to make this about quote mining, I'll have every single one of your atheists friend and scientific objectivist friends contradicting themselves and affirming creationism. But that wouldn't be very honest, would it?

Betting on Pascal topic

Either Blaise is right or he is wrong. And in this world no one will know for sure. And many, like me, will reject it entirely, so there will be no consequences for disregarding the wager, and I do not care anyway.

When I was much, much younger and still had a semblance of otherworldy belief, I would tell anyone who listened that I had a lot of questions for the almighty after my life ended as I knew it. Some would reply that they then hoped that there was no god.

Intellectual honesty is a standard that exists among any group of people who value truth. It isn't just "academia", and for the most part, it is relatively clear the kinds of thinking that are considered intellectually honest, even if some people fumble a bit with the exact expression of such ideas. Even further I don't get what you mean by "rely on any amount of honesty, intellectual or otherwise, that can "get" someone into heaven", I think you are trying to just LEAP to your conclusion. After all, let's just say that people are saved by faith in Jesus, well, the same objection "but since relatively few people are really concerned with Jesus, and not all Christians are in agreement of what God demands, then there is no way we can rely on any amount of faith that can "get" someone into heaven" could easily be applied to you. The issue is that this is a stupid objection, as nothing follows to your conclusion.


Academicians can argue all day about what it means to have saving faith in Jesus if you really want to get anal, and so on and so forth, but this proves nothing, and honestly, I would really bet that more academics debate about what a "saving faith in Jesus" means than they do about "what is intellectual honesty mean". Even further, who says that being a relatively intellectually honest person means "EVERY viewpoint is arrived at through purely objective means"? I don't see where that affirmation comes from. There is no person who "came up with "the rules" for intellectual honesty" in this view either, as language isn't really a matter of a single person's invention, and God can be assumed to be intellectual honest, even if it is argued that he created the initial idea somehow, so I don't understand your objection here either.


God can set any standard He likes. Are you going to say that God doesn't have the authority to set his own standards? Even further, are you saying EVERY human fails to meet human standards? I kind of doubt this, as if that were the case, then the standard would have no practical meaning. So, it seems to be that SOME humans fail to meet human standards, which is kind of an issue where I have to say "so what?"


That's not an argument, and it makes no sense. To say "we necessarily fail to uphold those standards" seems a bit ridiculous, because if you don't know what they are, then how do you know that they are too high? Are you saying that you know better than God on how to measure human virtue? I believe I've even already addressed the "lack of knowledge" objection to a significant enough degree, saying that if "intellectual honesty is a virtue, then it could be said that human beings should be expected to display this virtue if they attempt to lead good lives".


Right, so basically, you are saying exactly what I'd say about you.

"It really just seems to me that you'll take any line of reasoning, and be skeptical towards anything so long as it justifies your current belief, even if the measures you go to seem outright absurd to anybody who doesn't hold to your position, and possibly even people who do. "

I mean, I think anybody else could see this as well. As, I believe I've made my position on the matter clear. I believe that your entire argument is just "skepticism to something to attempt to refute a possibility to justify your current belief", and I think that the measure you are going to "seems outright absurd to anybody not holding your position".


You're basically a fideist by most of your expressions. Even further, how can you place a "high standard on academic honesty" if we don't *really* know what that is, and for all practical purposes cannot apply it in our own lives to any significant degree? After all, as I said before, you don't really refute the idea that God could use intellectual honesty unless you are refuting the possibility of having that, and it really does seem that you are trying to do that. I mean, either intellectual honesty is knowable and doable, and thus a possible metric for God to use, or it is not. If the latter, then claiming that you place a high value on it seems ridiculous. If the former, then I don't see how you can't admit my point, as "knowable and doable" is all that is necessary.

That's a recondite response.

For the conditions of salvation, read the Bible. Christ reveals that faith alone is sufficient. Later writers echo this.

"Intellectual honesty," or in my area of expertise "artistic integrity" are not conditions for salvation. It's not possible for it to be a condition because it's not something that everyone can universally agree on or aspire to. By contrast, it IS possible for everyone to accept the blood of Jesus as the perfect sacrifice and atonement for all humanity. POSSIBLE, although we know and, unfortunately, accept that not everyone WILL. There's a difference. It's much easier than trying to hold to a standard of completely eliminating bias in all areas of life. That's why it's more the realm of academicians than, say, auto mechanics.

Now, I think God, Jesus, the Bible, and a conscience inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so on, would cause a believer to value honesty and fair dealings, intellectually or otherwise. The command to "Love the Lord with your mind" suggests believers ought to be strong intellectually. But somehow I doubt that if, for example, a highly trained and skilled musician ended up being a trombone player that God would hold that against him through eternity even if it's deserved. Having a perfect and complete knowledge and understanding of Christian theology as it has grown through the centuries is not always possible, practical, and applicable, therefore it is an unfair condition for acceptance to God.