Is Intellectual Honesty a Religious Virtue?

[Cephus]

You have not quantified and expressed with real examples that the gospels were written by eye witnesses.

Since meekness is so subjective, I shall not bother with it.

That's the problem, he has nothing and he refuses to admit that he has nothing. All he can do is say what he believes, whether it's factually true or not, and expect people to take his blind faith seriously. When people don't take unsupported faith claims seriously, all he can do is keep repeating them over and over and over and throw insults at those who expect more. There are several theists on these forums who do exactly the same thing and anyone who reads them, especially theists, ought to feel really embarrassed to see their faith so painfully and irrationally defended.

 

[Baladas]

I would say that intellectual honesty is universally virtuous.

 

[Kenny]

You have not quantified and expressed with real examples that the gospels were written by eye witnesses.

Since meekness is so subjective, I shall not bother with it.

Actually, I did in relationship with the Epistle of John 1. I also expressly stated that Luke wrote what he had received from eye-witnesses. (A court reporter, so to speak)

For you view, I will state it again:

1 John 1:
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

He heard Jesus, he saw Jesus, and his hands handles Jesus. I can't see anything more clear.

Luke 1:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

In this one, one can believe it isn't true or it is. Personal viewpoints are just that, personal. IMV, those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word shared with Dr. Luke the information and he, as a doctor, knew how to take good notes.

 

[McBell]

Actually, I did in relationship with the Epistle of John 1. I also expressly stated that Luke wrote what he had received from eye-witnesses. (A court reporter, so to speak)

For you view, I will state it again:

1 John 1:
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

He heard Jesus, he saw Jesus, and his hands handles Jesus. I can't see anything more clear.

Luke 1:
1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

In this one, one can believe it isn't true or it is. Personal viewpoints are just that, personal. IMV, those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word shared with Dr. Luke the information and he, as a doctor, knew how to take good notes.

You presented your beliefs, then provided circular argumentation thinking it supports your beliefs.

Seems we have vastly different definitions for "real examples"...

 

[Kenny]

You presented your beliefs, then provided circular argumentation thinking it supports your beliefs.

Seems we have vastly different definitions for "real examples"...

That's fair!!

It is, however, a beginning point. In a court of law, a personal testimony is still admissible evidence. Corroborating evidence then helps establish whether it is correct.

Historical Evidence

While the internal testimony confirms conclusively the Johannine authorship of the Epistle there is also a mass of historical evidence which attributes the Epistle to the beloved disciple. The oldest testimony is that of Polycarp, who was personally acquainted with the Apostle John. We refer to the introduction of the Gospel of John where we give fuller information on Polycarp and his testimony to the fourth Gospel. He makes, in one of his writings, a direct reference to 1 John 4:3, in fact, he quotes this verse almost verbatim. It is, therefore, a testimony to the genuineness and the authorship of this Epistle. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, frequently quotes the Epistle of John and states that it is John's. Notable is the reference in his work against heresies as quoted by Eusebius. He cites John 20:31 and connects it with 1 John 2:18 and 4:1-3 and 1 John 5:1. After these two witnesses, Polycarp, who knew John, and Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, every authority among the church fathers mentions this Epistle as being the work of John the Apostle.

It is not necessary to quote all these references--by Clement of Alexandria , Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria , Eusebius, Jerome, and many others.

Commentary on 1 John - by A C Gaebelein

Since Polycarp personally knew the Apostle, for me it is evidence enough. Not to mention the other fathers of the faith that believed also.

 

[SkepticX]

There are a small number of theists around here who are so cocksure of their beliefs, wrongfully so, that nothing anyone else says means a thing.

And I'll bet all of them are lavished with attention rather than ignored once that's established.

Eh?

 

[Cephus]

And I'll bet all of them are lavished with attention rather than ignored once that's established.

Eh?

Not by me. There are a lot of people who I entirely ignore anything they post and virtually never respond to, just because I know they are incapable of having a rational response.

 

[SkepticX]

That's a good thing, yeah--far more conducive to a healthy and reasonable online social climate than the strange compulsion to swarm to unreasonable or irrational posting, thereby making sure it's perpetuated liberally so that mentality exerts undue influence on the social climate.

 

[Darius Madjzoub]

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.

Seriously, this question is posed to create a "mental cramp". A better question would be: "is there any world religions that promote intellectual dishonesty?" The answer to that is an emphatic NO!

 

[Cephus]

Seriously, this question is posed to create a "mental cramp". A better question would be: "is there any world religions that promote intellectual dishonesty?" The answer to that is an emphatic NO!

Which I would disagree with. There are no religions that promote intellectual honesty, that is a wholly intellectual, non-emotional system of viewing the world. As such, because they don't promote that, they do, in fact, functionally promote the opposite.

 

[Kenny]

Which I would disagree with. There are no religions that promote intellectual honesty, that is a wholly intellectual, non-emotional system of viewing the world. As such, because they don't promote that, they do, in fact, functionally promote the opposite.

??? then there are no wholly intellectual, non-emotional system of viewing the world--religious or non-religious.

 

[jtartar]

About Intellect

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.[/QUOTE

About Intellectual Honesty,
The answer is yes, some religions do follow intellectual Honesty.
The idea of Intellectual Honesty is to consider what a person is saying without disregarding them, because you believe that you already know the subject so thoroughly that they cannot add to you knowledge.
Very interesting scripture is found at 1Cor 8:2, where it says that if a person thinks he knows something, he does not know it as he ought to know it. That means we should, at least consider, or think about what another says, because we can all learn more, sometimes even when it seems very unlikely.
If some were not intellectually honest they would never have considered the possibility of the teaching of another religion as being the only one as stated at Eph 4:3-6. Every person would stay in the religion he was born to. If that were true there would be no reason to go everywhere and teach the Gospel, as Jesus ordered, just before he went back to heaven, Matt 28:19,20.
Many have proved they were intellectually honest, because, when they heard the truth of God's word they listened and believed, and changed their religion to the only one God blesses.

 

[Kenny]

Giv

??? then there are no wholly intellectual, non-emotional system of viewing the world--religious or non-religious.

It was a rhetorical answer to an obviously flawed statement

 

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Intellectual honesty is 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;
• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
• References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

The OP question was:

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.​

It seems to me that 'intellectual honesty' is an idea totally rooted in a relatively recent occidental context. Actually though intellectus and its cognatesis are pretty complex and have a long history in Western ideation:

• Intellect and Nous in philosophy. In philosophy, especially in classical and medieval philosophy the intellect or nous is an important subject connected to the question of how humans can know things. Especially during late antiquity and the middle ages, the intellect was often proposed as a concept which could reconcile philosophical and scientific understandings of nature with monotheistic religious understandings, by making the intellect a link between each human soul, and the divine intellect (or intellects) of the cosmos itself. (During the Latin Middle Ages a distinction developed whereby the term "intelligence" was typically used to refer to the incorporeal beings which governed the celestial spheres in many of these accounts.[1]) Also see: passive intellect and active intellect. (from Wiki)

So, to be 'intellectually honest' in the Medieval sense ... is likely not the same thing at all from what the poster of the OP meant. To be 'intellectually honest' we might have to say something like:

I have no idea at all where my self, my consciousness, is located. I have no idea at all how I have come to be here, experiencing myself in this world. I have, essentially, no idea about anything at all except insofar as I have come to understand, and the culture I live in tells me, that I am the most advanced sort of intellect that has existed to date on this Earth, and that the knowledge I have, or share, is of a supreme variety that supercedes all other ways of (intellectual) knowing.​

That could be taken to be 'intellectual honesty' ...

;-)

It seems to me that 'the religions of the world', meaning the religions of the past (all religions are founded in ancient metaphysics that have been severely challenged in our present, no?) would not have a stake in what is a modern and scientific assertion about truth and honesty. It would never have occurred to them (I imagine) to frame such a question. The question is hypermodern.

 

[McBell]

The question is hypermodern.

Ok.

And?

 

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

And ... the hypermodern is just a stance. Perhaps a fragile stance. Or a concocted one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Quest for intellectual honesty made the Charvaks, Buddhists, Jains, and Samkhya (Hindu philosophy - Nireeshwaravada - the doctrine of non-existence of God) deny existence of God. Indian religions fervently pursue it. Even Lord Rama is made to say this in Valmiki's 'Ramayana':

"Satyam eva ishwaro loke, satyam dharmah sadashrita;
satya moolani sarvani, satyen nasti param padam."

(Truth alone is God in the universe, in truth 'dharma' finds good refuge;
all have their base in truth, there is no station higher than truth.)

 

[Gambit]

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.

It is possible to argue that Buddhism and science share some commonalities.

 

[McBell]

And ... the hypermodern is just a stance. Perhaps a fragile stance. Or a concocted one.

Is this true for all "hypermoderns"?

 

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

Were all your 32,000 posts of this sort?