Intellectual integrity

[Neogaia777]

Where I grew up, Christianity is an alien minority
religion.
I was raised atheist though we observed certain
Buddhist rituals and ways of thought. As well
as from other religions including christmas.

I'm going to tell you about a few of my ideas anyway.

But as for the above, it sounds to me like the family in which you were raised didn't know what to believe or follow either way, etc.

I had no interest in or feelings about Chrictian
ideas. My 5+ yrs in the USA was introduction to
Christians.
Not to go into lengthy details, but I was unimpressed.

So you're still judging Christianity and Judiasm and the Bible based on other Jews or Christians?

That's interesting?

We teach the same things about morality and ethics,and
more besides, and it's just part of life, no preacher, no
church needed.

I hope you do know most of that was found/derived/adopted from the moral truths/laws found in the Bible and/or Christianity that were adopted by the rest of the world over time, etc.

The founding documents, starting with Genesis
are an odd mix of nonsense, obscurantism, pointless
recitation, folk,wisdom, advice good and bad, semi
historical accounts with a lot of magic realism.

They do show some of God's abilities to manipulate/overturn/use many forces/things, etc.

Many of the actions or instructions of " god"
are horrific.

Yes, they are. But that's because in the OT we are dealing with One who is meant to represent/introduce us to the beginnings of God, if God could have a beginning, etc. And also of a God who didn't know absolutely all of everything starting out at the beginning, etc.

I could go on... but as a holy book from a god of
perfect goodness...no.
It's not like I didn't read the book.

Many have read it and studied it for years, and perhaps all of their life, but without the ability to be truly 100% objective, did not really understand a lot of it, or had much divine revelation about the truths truly taught in it about many things, etc.

Those who read it as believers have next to no chance of seeing it without profound, usually unshakeable bias.

This is true on both or all sides of it, etc.

It's a highest virtue to just have faith that its all true somehow no matter what.

I don't think you have to have 100% blind faith necessarily, etc. I know mine is not, etc.

I was taught to question everything...and keep what proves good and true.
For me the bible is a near total flop in that regard.

So was I, but I always like to proceed with the premise of how a thing could or might be still true, if it is, and then dive deeper into those possibilities to see if they could still be true still or not, etc, and then if they can, still keep or maintain/retain an open mind about them until they can be proved otherwise, etc.

Questioning like that is discouraged in church.

Yes, it is, and is why I have been quite literally pushed out of many churches, but again, this goes back to judging the truth of a religion or certain sets of religious beliefs or a religious book as being true or not based on it's imperfect people, which is never wise, and in itself creates or leads to bias, etc.

And don't forget going to hell if you do dare!

I believe that hell is not literal, but what it truly is is people being locked in to a continuous cycle or reliving these kinds of lives/realities here, and that that is over and over again forever here that cannot be changed ever, etc.

But we don't know everything and so from our perspective it still can sometimes be changed sometimes, etc.

Objectivity has no role there.

Not necessarily.

God Bless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the secular world, the norms for intellectual integrity change often.

Intellectual integrity called Pluto our ninth planet for seventy-six years; until a rigged vote came along and changed that.

Now, today, anyone calling Pluto our ninth planet would be a violation of intellectual integrity (in most circles).

No, that's a misunderstanding. An honest disagreement with the consensus view is not a violation of intellectual integrity, even if it is factually mistaken.

 

[Astrid]

No, that's a misunderstanding. An honest disagreement with the consensus view is not a violation of intellectual integrity, even if it is factually mistaken.

Far from a violation we see confirmed
my assumption that there'd be fatuous posts
from those who didn't read the simple linked material.

 

[Astrid]

I've always, well, at least I have been more recently at least, proceeding with premise that if the Bible is telling a real true story about a real true God, or a Trinity of God's, then how can it still be true, and have been proceeding from there, etc, and have been trying to be as objective as possible from there, but along those lines, etc, and I think I have had more than a few breakthroughs there, or in those areas, etc.

Would you like me to tell you about some of them?

Many of them differ very much greatly from what most Christians will let themselves believe, or the Christian norm, etc.

God Bless.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Neogaia777]

I've no idea what you're talking about.

Ok.

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Far from a violation we see confirmed
my assumption that there'd be fatuous posts
from those who didn't read the simple linked material.

.......... I'd be more than happy to read and discuss the article you posted in the OP, but I'll only do it if we can have the discussion without any gaslighting or poisoning of the well to go along with that.

 

[Neogaia777]

I've no idea what you're talking about.

I proceed in my thinking (and research/searching, etc) that if the Bible or some of my ideas/religious beliefs about God is/are true, then how can it/they still be true nowadays, in the light of all else that we now know to be probaly true now nowadays, and develop my developing theories/ideas from there, etc.

Doing so only from among what is still possible from among that, or from there, or from among those, or in light of that, etc, or from among what else it is we now know to be more than likely probably true nowadays, from there, etc.

All the while keeping an open mind, but also trying to be as 100% truly objective as possible, until they (my ideas/theories) can be 100% eliminated or disproven otherwise, etc.

I tried to make it make more sense, but don't know that I really truly did or not...?

Anyway,

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

I'm going to tell you about a few of my ideas anyway.

But as for the above, it sounds to me like the family in which you were raised didn't know what to believe or follow either way, etc.

So you're still judging Christianity and Judiasm and the Bible based on other Jews or Christians?

That's interesting?

I hope you do know most of that was found/derived/adopted from the moral truths/laws found in the Bible and/or Christianity that were adopted by the rest of the world over time, etc.

They do show some of God's abilities to manipulate/overturn/use many forces/things, etc.

Yes, they are. But that's because in the OT we are dealing with One who is meant to represent/introduce us to the beginnings of God, if God could have a beginning, etc. And also of a God who didn't know absolutely all of everything starting out at the beginning, etc.

Many have read it and studied it for years, and perhaps all of their life, but without the ability to be truly 100% objective, did not really understand a lot of it, or had much divine revelation about the truths truly taught in it about many things, etc.

This is true on both or all sides of it, etc.

I don't think you have to have 100% blind faith necessarily, etc. I know mine is not, etc.

So was I, but I always like to proceed with the premise of how a thing could or might be still true, if it is, and then dive deeper into those possibilities to see if they could still be true still or not, etc, and then if they can, still keep or maintain/retain an open mind about them until they can be proved otherwise, etc.

Yes, it is, and is why I have been quite literally pushed out of many churches, but again, this goes back to judging the truth of a religion or certain sets of religious beliefs or a religious book as being true or not based on it's imperfect people, which is never wise, and in itself creates or leads to bias, etc.

I believe that hell is not literal, but what it truly is is people being locked in to a continuous cycle or reliving these kinds of lives/realities here, and that that is over and over again forever here that cannot be changed ever, etc.

But we don't know everything and so from our perspective it still can sometimes be changed sometimes, etc.

Not necessarily.

God Bless.

You have no ability to tele- mood read nor
do you, or anyone else have the capacity to anger me.

What you make up about me is not " intdresting".

Of what use is your "deep diving " if you come up with
belief that Noah's Ark just might be a true stofy?


As there is zero evidence for this remarkable event,
the only source for this belief is...
How a person chooses to interpret the Bible.

Which requires ignoring or misrepresenting so much
from archaeology, paleontology geology physics, chemistry as to make them meaningless. Void.
It's claiming to know more than any scientist on
Earth. With no education and no data.

Maybe you did not read the article on intellectual
integrity?

 

[Neogaia777]

You have no ability to tele- mood read nor
do you, or anyone else have the capacity to anger me.

What you make up about me is not " intdresting".

Of what use is your "deep diving " if you come up with
belief that Noah's Ark just might be a true stofy?


As there is zero evidence for this remarkable event,
the only source for this belief is...
How a person chooses to interpret the Bible.

Which requires ignoring or misrepresenting so much
from archaeology, paleontology geology physics, chemistry as to make them meaningless. Void.
It's claiming to know more than any scientist on
Earth. With no education and no data.

Maybe you did not read the article on intellectual
integrity?

My ideas/beliefs come from among the realm of what is still intellectually possible. I'm not out to prove them 100%, but only offer that they are still 100% possible within the realm of intellectual honesty, etc. Sorry you are getting so angry, but that in itself as a reaction to what I have said indicates a bias, otherwise known as "intellectual dishonesty", etc.

The rest of your post was unintelligible, sorry.

God Bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If there is any anger and frustration we just have to forgive her for it because Christians have definitely earned it. I feel similarly frustrated with Christianity myself and sympathize with her. I have no right to speak for Astrid, but where you read anger I might be more likely to read contempt. Well deserved contempt.

Personally, I reserve the right to deflect whatever anger or contempt non-Christians may have for what they say they've experienced at the hands (or mouths) or other Christians. And as an existentialist, I'm not taking the flack for any of that.

Conversely, I know better than to blame all non-Christians everywhere for the epistemological and moral failure that a select number of other non-Christians may make. I'm not going to make false attributions across the board. For making a fair assessment, I expect a fair assessment in return, and if I don't receive that sort of reciprocation, I feel justified in assuming there's a smudge on the integrity of those who place blame or a lack of integrity at my doorstep for what others do.

 

[Neogaia777]

But where you read anger I might be more likely to read contempt. Well deserved contempt.

It's still bias on the part of all of those who feel that way but are claiming intellectual integrity, or are claiming to be 100% intellectually honest, etc, and won't get any of us any closer to any kind of real truth/truths either way.

Yet they will come on here claiming to be fully on the side of just that, and even make/start whole entire threads about it, etc.

And what's the word for that again, or what is that called again?

Cause I forget, but doesn't it go like something the rest of them all claim to hate so much beginning with maybe an "h-y-p-o" maybe? And something with an ending to the effect of maybe something that sounds like "crisy" at the end of it maybe?

Cause I forget really, etc.

Anyway,

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread was moved from Physical & Life Sciences as this is more of an ethics topic.

Some clean up will be done.


Edit to add: Stick to the topic in the OP. Do not make this as Christian vs atheist thread.
I suspect this thread will end up closed, but in the meantime, thread bans can be done for those who makes this about apologetics rather than the topic. ​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've always, well, at least I have been more recently at least, proceeding with premise that if the Bible is telling a real true story about a real true God, or a Trinity of God's, then how can it still be true, and have been proceeding from there, etc, and have been trying to be as objective as possible from there, but along those lines, etc, and I think I have had more than a few breakthroughs there, or in those areas, etc.

Would you like me to tell you about some of them?

If you can briefly and clearly articulate your major 'breakthroughs' in objectively determining how the bible can be literally true, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

 

[Neogaia777]

If you can briefly and clearly articulate your major 'breakthroughs' in objectively determining how the bible can be literally true, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

The best I can do is "still possible", or "still possibly literally true" mostly. Because I do not have evidence, etc. But I can do that within the realm of what history/science, etc, would right now consider are still real world possibilities, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

We must also remember that humans are fallible and scientists are human.

There's also a difference between intentional and unintentional error, whether it's apparent or not - and that difference concerns integrity.

I believe the article is largely about that exact point,
that all people are highly fallible.
No ideology or belief system grants immunity.

That's why it is necessary to face squarely the matter
of fallibility and integrity, understand what intelectual
honesty is and is not, and to consciously strive for
complete objectivity.

Obviously total integrity and objectivity are ideals
and as such is impossible to achieve.

Those who see value in truth and integrity are,
though, obligated to do their best.


Intellectual honesty is not a religion v atheist issue,
despite the efforts of the suspect squad to make it
somehow an attack on Christianity to speak of
integrity.

If integrity is incompatible with beliefs,
It can be taken as a sign that theres serious
flaws in the beliefs..

To your observation about unintentional
error: Our squad is quite tiresome- and dishonest-
in condemning science for errors as if that condemns
all of the practice of disciplined thought.

There is a corresponding and widespread pattern in religions of taking on a mantle of personal infallibility interpreting the texts and teachings- which pretty much defines the far extreme of intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps you could say if you find its willful ignorance
to have unshakeable belief in astrology, world wide flood, homeopathy, palm reading, etc. or ,just simple error.


I hold that it's impossible to be well informed and
be an advocate for such as astrology, or yec ftm, while maintaining any semblance of intellectual integrity.

Do you see any way it's possible?

ETA the existence of any god or spirit cannot be proved or disproved. That's a matter of faith.

Whether one is being honest with himself to decide
BIigfoot is god and will lead the worlc...you decide.

What can often be disproved is human claims about supernatural events attributed to a god or spirit.

Disproof of "Flood" is one such. Water- to- wine, or whether the
kitchen god in my flat actually reports to his boss on
my doings is not subject to disproof

Anti- intellectualism is intellectual dishonesty.


Belief in the face of logic and disproof is dishonest-
as some who dont think so would learn to their sorrow
if wrongly convicted in court.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hold that it's impossible to be well informed and be an advocate for such as astrology, or yec ftm, while maintaining any semblance of intellectual integrity.

Does that apply to being an advocate of the Resurrection as well?

Can a person be well informed and believe in the Resurrection, without compromising intellectual integrity?

 

[AV1611VET]

Such as the paleontologist who who said he'd still be YEC if all data in the universe turned against yec - a statement that virtually defines scientific dishonesty.

Two statements:

1. Even if there was not a lick of evidence for the Resurrection, I would still say it happened.

2. Even if all evidence in the universe showed the Resurrection didn't happen, I would still say it did.

Does that make me intellectually dishonest?

 

[Astrid]

If you can briefly and clearly articulate your major 'breakthroughs' in objectively determining how the bible can be literally true, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

This being now an ethics and morality thread,
I'd say that asserting unevidenced " truth"
is profoundly unethical.

 

[dzheremi]

Boy, it really says something that people apparently cannot stick to the topic even after a thread move and a warning from a moderator.

Anyway, before the thread gets locked, I agree that intellectual integrity is the highest value in science, as without it there is very little that can be done to positively appraise whatever findings we are to evaluate. Even in my own little corner of it (linguistics), on the fuzzy border between the 'soft' social sciences and the 'hard' beaker and test tube sciences (depending on one's specialization), we have had the same replication crises that have affected other fields, the same publication bias towards positive, 'sexy' (in a media savvy sense) results, etc., etc. Are all of these the result of intellectual dishonesty in every case? No, of course not, but it is clear that some of them are, and the more 'fluffy' the topic, the more likely it is to be just garbage that is not useful to anyone masquerading as a cutting-edge breakthrough of some kind. It has happened more times than I would like to admit (though probably less than detractors of the humanities more generally would expect) that I read something after having my interest piqued by its prompt only to wonder afterwards how the heck it ever got published.

 

[Astrid]

Boy, it really says something that people apparently cannot stick to the topic even after a thread move and a warning from a moderator.

Anyway, before the thread gets locked....

I don't want to read and then report suspect squad posts.

Direct appea to them -please go away. You are not welcome.
Goading and derailing is undignified, and unethical.
It's against forum rules.

I don't follow you around trying to disrupt everything you say.

If you've not read the article don't understand the topic, don't intend to discuss the topic you've no place here.


Show a little decency, and cease.