Is Intellectual Honesty a Religious Virtue?

[Sunstone]

I think all of them, in their most scholarly forms, appreciate the intellectual honesty of others...

I think that might be true.

 

[oldbadger]

Why not simply and honestly admit that your religion does not explicitly value intellectual honesty, if that's the case? Why instead attack intellectual honesty as "pretentious"?

Thanks for the response and questions.
I don't have a religion. My interest in Jesus and John the Baptist is the report of his last year of life as reported in Gospel-of-Mark.
But I would agree that Jesus did not value Intellectual-honesty at all. He kept it simple, as in 'Don't swear by God or elaborate, just let you Yes mean yes....', or words close to that.
I think that Jesus (and John) did attack that kind of mindset and definition, yes.
The problem with definitions such as 'Intellectual-Honesty' is that they are meaningless.... yes, pretentious.
If Honesty must be split up at all then let it be Honesty in 'thought, word and deed'. All people can grasp that, but the majority will almost certainly feel that I-H does not apply to them. Intellectual-Honesty should be filed in some dictionary of pretensions, along with virtual-virginity or ..... I think you can get what I mean. That's it..... it's intellectual-pretension. I'll bet that in may cases, when a person offers to be intellectually-honest, that they are preparing to deceive. I'll bet that's what Jesus would have thought as well, from reports of his sayings.

 

[Sees]

Another thing for me

I look at the story of Odin's sacrifices to gain more wisdom, truth, knowledge, etc. as inspiration to do the same...sacrifice the comfort of pretending all you think you know is correct, pretending your ignorance isn't as all-pervasive as it truly is.

Scary but adventurous to leave mental fortresses behind during self-examination and Quests o' Truth.

"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to." - Bilbo

 

[Sunstone]

T
The problem with definitions such as 'Intellectual-Honesty' is that they are meaningless.... yes, pretentious.
If Honesty must be split up at all then let it be Honesty in 'thought, word and deed'. All people can grasp that, but the majority will almost certainly feel that I-H does not apply to them. Intellectual-Honesty should be filed in some dictionary of pretensions, along with virtual-virginity or ..... I think you can get what I mean. That's it..... it's intellectual-pretension. I'll bet that in may cases, when a person offers to be intellectually-honest, that they are preparing to deceive. I'll bet that's what Jesus would have thought as well, from reports of his sayings.

So you don't like the phrase, "intellectual honesty", because -- to your ear -- it smacks of pretension. I can agree with your right to have personal preferences for or against particular words or phrases. But I'm not inclined to buy into the nonsensical notion, implied by your reasoning, that anyone who uses the phrase, "intellectual honesty", is being pretentious. That seems to me quite a stretch, as if you were to argue that, because you personally don't like the word, "human", anyone who considers themselves a human must be a twit.

 

[Sunstone]

I look at the story of Odin's sacrifices to gain more wisdom, truth, knowledge, etc. as inspiration to do the same...sacrifice the comfort of pretending all you think you know is correct, pretending your ignorance isn't as all-pervasive as it truly is.

That's fascinating. I think Odin's valuation of wisdom and knowledge could be understood to imply that intellectual honesty is a virtue, albeit I don't think it quite makes it explicit that intellectual honesty is a virtue. But Odin's sacrifice seems to me quite a positive thing in this regard.

 

[Sunstone]

Intellectual honesty is not easy. But 1 Corinthians 14:24,25 relates it as a Christian virtue. And James 1:22-26 relates it as a must.

"But if you are all prophesying (speaking God's thoughts) and an unbeliever or an ordinary person comes in, he will be reproved and closely examined by them all. The secrets of his heart then become evident, so that he will fall facedown and worship God, declaring: 'Go is really among you.'" - 1 Cor 14:24,25

"However, become doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves with false reasoning. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, this one is like a man looking at his own face in a mirror. For he looks at himself, and he goes away and immediately forgets what sort of person he is. But the one who peers into the perfect law that belongs to freedom and continues in it has become, not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; and he will be happy in what he does. If any man thinks he is a worshipper of God (or "is religious.") but does not keep a tight rein on (or "does not bridle.") his tongue, he is decieving his own heart, and his worship is futile." - James 1:22-26

I'm not sure how you get from Corinthians to intellectual honesty?

Also, I think James is speaking more to religious hypocrisy than to intellectual honesty.

 

[oldbadger]

Sunstone wrote:-
So you don't like the phrase, "intellectual honesty", because -- to your ear -- it smacks of pretension.

Yes..... in my whole being I mistrust it.

I can agree with your right to have personal preferences for or against particular words or phrases.

OK....

But I'm not inclined to buy into the nonsensical notion, implied by your reasoning, that anyone who uses the phrase, "intellectual honesty", is being pretentious.

A person who claims 'I am being Intellectually honest' has to have a reason for that 'construct' of definition. It would attract my interest in the same way as..... say.... a person who swears on his daughter's new born baby's life....' .... in fact any embellishment of 'This is my truth....' or 'Honestly...' would focus me carefully.

That seems to me quite a stretch, as if you were to argue that, because you personally don't like the word, "human", anyone who considers themselves a human must be a twit.

No.... I wouldn't argue that. I'd think that person in your analogy would be a right-twit-too. !!
But I would propose that Jesus said, 'Let your Yes mean yes, and your No mean no.' How beautiful is that?'

Ergo, I put it to you that no religion need worry about presenting evidence in intellectual honesty. Religions only have to say 'This is our truth....'
Done.

PS. The RF system would not bring your post up as a quote so I copied it and made it so...

 

[Sunstone]

Yes..... in my whole being I mistrust it.

But your emotionalism cannot be considered logically sufficient grounds for anyone else to adopt your prejudices against the phrase, "intellectual honesty", can it?

A person who claims 'I am being Intellectually honest' has to have a reason for that 'construct' of definition. It would attract my interest in the same way as..... say.... a person who swears on his daughter's new born baby's life....' .... in fact any embellishment of 'This is my truth....' or 'Honestly...' would focus me carefully.

That does not amount to a refutation of intellectual honesty as either a concept or virtue, in my book, but only at most advice to be reasonably cautious when people claim to honest.

Religions only have to say 'This is our truth....'

In other words, to return to the OP, you yourself know of no religions that make intellectual honesty an explicit virtue.

 

[Willamena]

i gud at spealing ??? Wot yuo talkcing abuot

Did you mean, "this means they're intelligent enough to realize there not," or "this means they're intelligent enough to realize they're not?"

...I take that back. I can agree with both.

 

[lovemuffin]

It is not clear to me why you are obfuscating. The bible is the definitive source for defining faith within the context of Christianity.

I'm sorry if you think I'm obfuscating. I think we have an actual substantive disagreement which is relevant to the claim that faith is incompatible with intellectual honesty.

There is no doubt that the Bible is centrally important to Christianity, but the claim you made was that the Bible was all we have. But, defining Christianity in some nominalistic way, i.e Christianity is that which is actually believed and practiced by Christians, that claim is plainly false. Numerous Christians have written about the meaning of faith in a way that extends beyond what the Bible says on the topic, and the fact that Christians go beyond the Bible is not limited to ideas about faith: Trinitarianism and beliefs about Mary (from the title Theotokos, to the traditional belief in her assumption into heaven, to the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate conception, and etc) are good examples.

Beyond that, the Bible itself does not define faith in a univocal conceptual fashion, and understands faith only obliquely in relation to epistemology. The faith that Abraham had in God, as the singular example referred to in the Bible, is not an abstract intellectual assent to the truth of a proposition.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm sorry if you think I'm obfuscating. I think we have an actual substantive disagreement which is relevant to the claim that faith is incompatible with intellectual honesty.

There is no doubt that the Bible is centrally important to Christianity, but the claim you made was that the Bible was all we have.

No it wasn't. My claim was that the bible gives the difinitive defijition of 'faith' in the context of Christianity.

But, defining Christianity in some nominalistic way, i.e Christianity is that which is actually believed and practiced by Christians, that claim is plainly false. Numerous Christians have written about the meaning of faith in a way that extends beyond what the Bible says on the topic,

Good for them, the bible remains the authority on what faith means in Christianity.

and the fact that Christians go beyond the Bible is not limited to ideas about faith: Trinitarianism and beliefs about Mary (from the title Theotokos, to the traditional belief in her assumption into heaven, to the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate conception, and etc) are good examples.

Beyond that, the Bible itself does not define faith in a univocal conceptual fashion, and understands faith only obliquely in relation to epistemology. The faith that Abraham had in God, as the singular example referred to in the Bible, is not an abstract intellectual assent to the truth of a proposition.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at. How are you defining faith? I am si ply poonting out that according to the biblical definition it is incompatible with intellectual honesty.

 

[Bunyip]

That doesn't really look like intellectual dishonesty, more like fundamentalism.
But that's only from a quick glance, I'll look into it a bit more.

Thanks, I'm sure you will find it fascinating. It was an organised and well funded attempt by the US religious right (through the Discovery Institute) to deliberately sabotage science education, perpetuate a fraud and make students distrust reason itself. The agenda of the Wedge was to drive a wedge between the public and their trust in science and reason.

Another good example would be the transcript of the Kitzmiller - Dover trial, which demonstrates that the Intelligent Design 'theory' was a cynical re-branding of Young Earth Creationism in order to subvert an earlier court ruling. The truth is (as you will readily discover if you look into it) that there is no ID theory, there is not even a testable hypothesis or one single established example of irreducible complexity.
In fact the entire Creation/Evolution controversy is a US religious right invention. In most other developed countries there is no such controversy and has not been for generations.

 

[lovemuffin]

There is no doubt that the Bible is centrally important to Christianity, but the claim you made was that the Bible was all we have.

No it wasn't. My claim was that the bible gives the definitive definition of 'faith' in the context of Christianity.

I'm referring to the post where you said that "the biblical definition is poor, sure - but it is all we have."

It is wrong as a matter of fact that the bible is the only source we have. Christian theologians have written about the meaning of faith outside of the Bible, and what they've written is important to Christian understanding of faith.

the bible remains the authority on what faith means in Christianity.

I'm afraid you're going to fall into a no true scotsman fallacy here with regard to authority, even granting the obvious importance of the Bible in Christian thought. But, leaving it aside, you characterized the Biblical take on faith like this:

Faith beliefs are not drawn from knowledge, evidence or critical analysis - and are hence not intellectually honest.

I responded by saying that this is not a reasonable characterization of faith even in the Bible. I cited the prototypical example of Abraham, whose "faith" did not really have very much to do with intellectual belief, but something closer to trust in God in a more immediate way. So I think your definition is deficient.

Beyond that, I think your conclusion is also a non-sequitur. Even if faith is defined as an epistemological category "belief without evidence", it does not follow that faith is incompatible with intellectual honesty. Earlier in the thread, four example criteria for intellectual honesty were posted, quoted from the wikipedia. None of them are logically incompatible with faith in general unless you understand "not letting personal beliefs interfere with the pursuit of truth" in such a way as to beg the question. Especially given that faith as a category is not equivalent to belief in some particular proposition. Faith in and of itself does not prevent the intellectually honest pursuit of truth. It doesn't necessarily entail omitting inconvenient evidence, relying on biased presentation or mischaracterization, or deception. Sometimes religious people do all of those things, but it's not something logically inherent to "faith". As I said before, it may be impossible to hold certain concrete beliefs in an intellectually honest way (I would consider YEC in that category), but that's not the same thing.

How are you defining faith?

I don't think faith has a single simple definition, but here is an alternative, taken from the introduction to Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith (Gregory is an important theologian of the 4th century):

"While Gregory of Nyssa spoke of faith in a variety of senses, this study will focus on a particular, indeed technical, use of the term pistis. We shall see that Gregory of Nyssa ascribes to faith qualities which Neoplatonism would reserve to the crest of the wave of nous. Indeed, for Gregory, faith becomes a faculty of union with God, who is beyond all comprehension, beyond the reach of concept, image, word."

The definition encompasses more than an epistemology because union is taken to mean something ontological, rather than a matter of knowledge. By "faculty", Gregory means something analogous to sensory perception as a human faculty. Part of the analogy is in "the experience of faith" being immediate in a similar way as sensory perception is.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm referring to the post where you said that "the biblical definition is poor, sure - but it is all we have."

It is wrong as a matter of fact that the bible is the only source we have. Christian theologians have written about the meaning of faith outside of the Bible, and what they've written is important to Christian understanding of faith.



I'm afraid you're going to fall into a no true scotsman fallacy here with regard to authority, even granting the obvious importance of the Bible in Christian thought. But, leaving it aside, you characterized the Biblical take on faith like this:



I responded by saying that this is not a reasonable characterization of faith even in the Bible. I cited the prototypical example of Abraham, whose "faith" did not really have very much to do with intellectual belief, but something closer to trust in God in a more immediate way. So I think your definition is deficient.

Beyond that, I think your conclusion is also a non-sequitur. Even if faith is defined as an epistemological category "belief without evidence", it does not follow that faith is incompatible with intellectual honesty. Earlier in the thread, four example criteria for intellectual honesty were posted, quoted from the wikipedia. None of them are logically incompatible with faith in general unless you understand "not letting personal beliefs interfere with the pursuit of truth" in such a way as to beg the question. Especially given that faith as a category is not equivalent to belief in some particular proposition. Faith in and of itself does not prevent the intellectually honest pursuit of truth. It doesn't necessarily entail omitting inconvenient evidence, relying on biased presentation or mischaracterization, or deception. Sometimes religious people do all of those things, but it's not something logically inherent to "faith". As I said before, it may be impossible to hold certain concrete beliefs in an intellectually honest way (I would consider YEC in that category), but that's not the same thing.



I don't think faith has a single simple definition, but here is an alternative, taken from the introduction to Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith (Gregory is an important theologian of the 4th century):

"While Gregory of Nyssa spoke of faith in a variety of senses, this study will focus on a particular, indeed technical, use of the term pistis. We shall see that Gregory of Nyssa ascribes to faith qualities which Neoplatonism would reserve to the crest of the wave of nous. Indeed, for Gregory, faith becomes a faculty of union with God, who is beyond all comprehension, beyond the reach of concept, image, word."

The definition encompasses more than an epistemology because union is taken to mean something ontological, rather than a matter of knowledge. By "faculty", Gregory means something analogous to sensory perception as a human faculty. Part of the analogy is in "the experience of faith" being immediate in a similar way as sensory perception is.

It seems I just need to clarify and restate my original point; Faith as it is defined in the religious context (the apprehension of things unseem) is incompatible with intellectual honesty.
There are many other interpretations, so I refer specifically to the biblical definition - I am not referring to all possible definitions.

 

[lovemuffin]

The post you quoted contains an attempt at arguing against your assertion as you presented it earlier, so I'm happy to focus on that and leave the other definitions aside.

 

[Bunyip]

The post you quoted contains an attempt at arguing against your assertion as you presented it earlier, so I'm happy to focus on that and leave the other definitions aside.

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.

 

[oldbadger]

But your emotionalism cannot be considered logically sufficient grounds for anyone else to adopt your prejudices against the phrase, "intellectual honesty", can it?.

Emotion? No...... more of a logical conclusion.

That does not amount to a refutation of intellectual honesty as either a concept or virtue, in my book, but only at most advice to be reasonably cautious when people claim to honest..

Advice to to take care, yes, but RH is no virtue, but a posture. It's not needed.... either. Let's just debate or discuss with as much truth as we can grasp?

In other words, to return to the OP, you yourself know of no religions that make intellectual honesty an explicit virtue.

I can only propose that Jesus said 'use yes and no for your honest replies'.

My xp computer crashed ... no m-soft backup now. This one took about ten minutes to write the above. I will pick up any replies when I'vce got sorted.

 

[Quintessence]

How relevant is a concept like "intellectual honesty" to a thing like religion?

The concept is appropriate to apply to academia where the goal is to have an impartial or more objective understanding of something. Applying the concept outside of academia is problematic, and something I generally find to be inappropriate. The concept of "intellectual honesty" has little bearing on questions of personal value, meaningfulness, and relationships; it can also get in the way of expressions of these things. I value "intellectual honesty" in its appropriate place, and do not value it when it sticks its nose in places where it does not belong.

 

[Maya Kaath]

Intellectual honesty cannot occur in the context of willful ignorance.

Which is true whether one is religious or not. Neither can it exist in the presence of dogmatism—which can be either a cause or an effect of ignorance, willful or otherwise.

You're right, I think, that honesty and willful ignorance are incompatible, for in being willfully ignorant, one is essentially saying that they are open to being lied to and to lying to themselves.

The religious scriptures I've read all hold the virtues of honesty, truthfulness and trustworthiness as being fundamental to real faith. All of these virtues are also implicit in the idea that purity of heart is an essential quality of faith.

Take opening passages of one of the essential volumes of the Bahá'í Faith, for example.

O SON OF SPIRIT! My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting.

O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.
(Hidden Words of Bahá'u'lláh, vs 1&2)

Taken together these two passage clearly exhort the believer to purity of heart, justice (which is defined, in effect, as intellectual honesty) and a rigorous level of self knowledge that is implicit in the idea of intellectual honesty. Both of these related ideals are emphasized throughout the Bahá'í scriptures. But they are also writ large in the pages of earlier scriptures, whether in simple, broad terms (Thou shalt not bear false witness) or more complex ones (i.e. the discourse that Krishna has with Arjuna at the beginning of the Bhagavad Gita).

 

[Maya Kaath]

Interesting question. I think that faith (in the religious context) is essentially incompatible with intellectual honesty. So I would see the faith based religions as being problematic in terms of intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty seems dependant on being able to critically analyse our views and beliefs - faith excludes such critical analysis.

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. 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.

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)