Intellectual integrity

[2PhiloVoid]

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

... on a certain level, you're correct to link epistemic accountability with ethical justification. However, where Christianity is concerned, or even where only the topic of religion on the whole is being assessed, philosophers from Blaise Pascal to William James to Basil Mitchel would apply further qualifications to your indictment that Christian are in an unethical state of belief if and when they value what you deem are questionable evidences.

In other words, it's not quite correct to say that the assertions of William K. Clifford have the last ethical laugh where Christianity is the focal point.

 

[AV1611VET]

To repeat one mentioned elsewhere, do you think it would be ethical of me to set out a kitchen god statue and tell a child he'd be reporting the child for punishment?

You mean an Elf on the Shelf?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Questionable" evidence?
You do recognize that for Christians
at least. "Faith...things unseen" is a high virtue.

No, I don't recognize that. Mainly because I'm pretty sure that what the writer of the "Hebrews" letter intended to refer to as "faith" in chapter 11, verse 1, isn't exactly what a number of both Christians and Atheists today conceptually make it out to be, which by their definition is "belief with no evidence." Most educated people can realize Christian faith isn't "believing without evidence." At least I'd hope they can with some exegetical and hermeneutical study.

I do recognize that my words can be lawyered
a bit. I didnt set out to write an exhaustibe trestise.
Just set out a basic concept.

And, like I said, on a certain level, I agree with you. I am an Evidentialist myself (believe it or not), so I'm fairly firm on the importance that both accuracy and honesty have in the the scientific understanding of handling and assessing evidence, of whatever kind. So, no one is "lawyering" your words here, especially not me.

I'm not interested in Clifford assertions or Pascal wagers.
Philosophers are a tiresome lot.

You're making Clifford's argument here in this thread, apparently without even knowing it ...

... and what's more, Ethics IS a part of the overall field of Philosophy, not some "other thing." And where science and ethics meet, then we are walking within the boundaries of what the Fee-loss-so-fers say and weigh in on about these matters. If we're talking about intellectual integrity, then we're not only referring to the valuation of accuracy and cogency in assertions made about our world; we're also referring to the contours of ethical considerations that are bound up in the mental processes of those who make those very assertions.

I don't know what an "unethical state of belief" is but

It's the immoral state of belief --- atheist though he was --- Clifford proposed that religious people all too often fall into.

I doubt it exists.

It exists. And, along with what you, and I, and philosophers like Charles Peirce aver for where competency and honesty are important aspects in academic and intellectual integrity...it's ok if you want to admit that "it exists."

I live in China where Christianity is certainly not
a focal point.

And? I referred very clearly to "religion on the whole," which would also include the religious side of Confucianism and Buddhism and Taoism.

My thread is not about Christians.

Fine. .... let's pinpoint the important parts of the OP article by Robert T. Pennock involving comments from Richard Feynman that you wish to discuss.

So, what parts of the article do you want to bring my attention to?

Personally, I like the bit that Robert Pennock says about how:

Integrity is the right word here, for the kind of utter honesty that Feynman is talking about involves the integration of values and methods in just the way that is required for the exemplary practice of science. Given that the goal of science is to answer empirical questions to satisfy our curiosity about the world, it is only by striving for the highest level of rigor and care in our methods and practices that a scientist, and the scientific community, can be confident that a question has been satisfactorily answered, and we have indeed made a real discovery.​

​

There are many different religious beliefs here.

I've studied most of the major World Religions, so I'm not experiencing any fear of being unfamiliar with them and unable to comment relevantly on them, if needed.

To repeat one mentioned elsewhere, do you think it
would be ethical of me to set out a kitchen god statue and tell a child he'd be reporting the child for punishment?

Do you mean to ask about whether it's ethical or not to tell a child that a statue of some divinity will report that child?

Apply same to any unevidenced or superstitious
belief you can think of.

Flat Earth seems easy enough. Or that the Moon is made of cheese. Or that Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. Or that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Or even one a number of pseudo-scientific notions that are presented in Sci-Fi shows like, "Fringe."

Do you have a belief specifically in mind?

 

[AV1611VET]

As for faith I've heard Christians do that " things unseen" 10,000 times.

10,000 ???

Is that all?

Incl of what use is faith if there's proof.

Well ... you know ...

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Here are a few of our works:

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You think there is evidence that Christianity has
some good and sufficient evidence for its
supernatural basis?

"Supernatural evidence"? No, I do not. But I think there's reasonable historical evidence for the substance of the Christian Faith and that there's isn't all that much precluding that it is, on some level, true.

As for faith I've heard Christians do that " things
unseen" 10,000 times.

So have I, but I know that the quantity of claims doesn't translate into the quality of those claims.

Your pov, once. Maybe that's best taken up
with christians. Incl of what use is faith if there's proof.

ok

In Chinese thought, ethics is, a matter of action
not some feeling or state of mind.

yes, I know.

And off into translation / equivocation.

I don't accept your pov, you dont accept
mine.

I'm not sure you actually know what my pov is. .... anyway, I get the sense you don't want to discuss your OP article since you don't even mention here.

ok.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Rather than just ghost you I will tell you the convo
is over.

Thank you for letting me know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The best I can do is "still possible", or "still possibly literally true" mostly. Because I do not have evidence, etc.

I wasn't asking for evidence, but your reasoning.

But I can do that within the realm of what history/science, etc, would right now consider are still real world possibilities, etc.

OK, so let's hear an example or two.

 

[Neogaia777]

I wasn't asking for evidence, but your reasoning.


OK, so let's hear an example or two.

If you want me to start at the beginning, I think Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 should have been all chapter one for starters (chapter verses and breaks were not added until later, etc) and I think it is, as it says in Genesis 2:4, an entire history of a whole heaven and earth all the way from it's beginning to end mainly, and that it spans a very long time period, and includes billions of years, just like science says.

I think we are on day 6, and that day 6 began with the first land animals hundreds of millions of years ago, just like science says.

I also think there were two different races or possibly even species of humanoids, one that had evolved from animal, and another one that was specially created or made around 6-7,000 years ago (no one really knows, except that they exited the area/garden/place around 6,000 years or so ago) very far into day 6 already, in small localized region in the region of Mesopotamia for a time temporarily, etc.

I believe it was the original plan for the specially made or created ones to rule over the other ones eventually, and that that was always the original plan, etc. But the fall happened there, and later on plans had to change, etc. But I believe it was always God in the OT's plan to choose a chosen people to rule over the earth and all other ones in the earth eventually, etc.

I think the original descendants of Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve, were called Sons of God, etc, and that they could have been a whole different humanoid species from the other ones, or completely other species/race, etc. They might have been physically larger as well, etc.

I think the flood was local to the region of Mesopotamia and that it was meant to all but completely wipe out that original species, or specially created/made species or race, etc, all except a few, or Noah and his family, etc. And I think "giants" came from some of the survivors of this original species/race, etc.

Those are some examples for now.

Let me know if you want me to go on more, or further, or go into more detail about some of what I already said.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.....
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.

It's particularly tricky when talking about beliefs, unshakeable or otherwise - people differ about the precise meanings of integrity, honesty, and dishonesty, and people's beliefs change, e.g. they may come to a belief they hold honestly, for reasons that were dishonest or lacking in integrity - people can be (and often are) manipulated into false beliefs.

I think wilful ignorance is dishonest, but again, people can be persuaded to honestly believe arguments they can see - even acknowledge - lack intellectual integrity. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that of faith, of belief without or despite evidence, and that resisting reasonable doubt is a laudable display of fortitude. This appears to be an appeal to emotion, both for the belief content and its justification. Wilful ignorance itself becomes the subject of belief and undermines reason by devaluing reasonable doubt.

I see all absolute unshakeable beliefs as a form of wilful ignorance - denial of alternative possibilities, however remote. This doesn't mean anything goes, but that, to paraphrase Descartes, everything can be doubted except that there is a doubter; as the fledgling Bayesian David Hume said, "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" (modern philosophers might prefer 'credence' over 'belief' there). Or, as Wendell Johnson amusingly put it: "Two words you should always remember never to say: 'always' and 'never'".

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?

No, I agree with you.

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

Their existence is a matter of faith; that their existence cannot be proved or disproved is a matter of definition ;-)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you want me to start at the beginning, I think Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 should have been all chapter one for starters (chapter verses and breaks were not added until later, etc) and I think it is, as it says in Genesis 2:4, an entire history of a whole heaven and earth all the way from it's beginning to end mainly, and that it spans a very long time period, and includes billions of years, just like science says.

I think we are on day 6, and that day 6 began with the first land animals hundreds of millions of years ago, just like science says.

I asked about literal biblical truths. What you think Genesis should have been is not relevant. Six days is not literally billions of years, and one day is not literally hundreds of millions of years. To interpret them as such is a 'begging the question' fallacy.

I also think there were two different races or possibly even species of humanoids, one that had evolved from animal, and another one that was specially created or made around 6-7,000 years ago (no one really knows, except that they exited the area/garden/place around 6,000 years or so ago) very far into day 6 already, in small localized region in the region of Mesopotamia for a time temporarily, etc.

I believe it was the original plan for the specially made or created ones to rule over the other ones eventually, and that that was always the original plan, etc. But the fall happened there, and later on plans had to change, etc. But I believe it was always God in the OT's plan to choose a chosen people to rule over the earth and all other ones in the earth eventually, etc.

I think the original descendants of Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve, were called Sons of God, etc, and that they could have been a whole different humanoid species from the other ones, or completely other species/race, etc. They might have been physically larger as well, etc.

I think the flood was local to the region of Mesopotamia and that it was meant to all but completely wipe out that original species, or specially created/made species or race, etc, all except a few, or Noah and his family, etc. And I think "giants" came from some of the survivors of this original species/race, etc.

Those are some examples for now.

Again, I was asking for your reasoning, not statements of belief.

You said that you've recently had, "more than a few breakthroughs" "trying to be as objective as possible" in discovering how it can be true that "the Bible is telling a real true story about a real true God, or a Trinity of God's".

I asked for examples of your breakthroughs in objectively determining how the bible can be literally true (about "a real true God, or a Trinity of God's") and the reasoning that led you to them.

 

[Neogaia777]

I asked about literal biblical truths. What you think Genesis should have been is not relevant. Six days is not literally billions of years, and one day is not literally hundreds of millions of years. To interpret them as such is a 'begging the question' fallacy.


Again, I was asking for your reasoning, not statements of belief.

You said that you've recently had, "more than a few breakthroughs" "trying to be as objective as possible" in discovering how it can be true that "the Bible is telling a real true story about a real true God, or a Trinity of God's".

I asked for examples of your breakthroughs in objectively determining how the bible can be literally true (about "a real true God, or a Trinity of God's") and the reasoning that led you to them.

I said I could tell you how it could be true within the realm of real possibility, nothing more.

And I told you also that I didn't have evidence either, etc.

And there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says how long one of God's days is, or has to be also, etc.

But what led me to them (my reasoning) is considering the possibilities, including the possibility that man's classical interpretations over the centuries, most of which are from a very, very long time ago, could be wrong, etc.

But, don't worry, I already knew you wouldn't be happy with it, and would find a way to criticize it, as I already know you've already closed mind to it already, or made up your mind already.

Let me just ask you this then?

Can you disprove it's being possible?

Yes or No?

Because that's all I promised you, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I asked about literal biblical truths. What you think Genesis should have been is not relevant. Six days is not literally billions of years, and one day is not literally hundreds of millions of years. To interpret them as such is a 'begging the question' fallacy.


Again, I was asking for your reasoning, not statements of belief.

You said that you've recently had, "more than a few breakthroughs" "trying to be as objective as possible" in discovering how it can be true that "the Bible is telling a real true story about a real true God, or a Trinity of God's".

I asked for examples of your breakthroughs in objectively determining how the bible can be literally true (about "a real true God, or a Trinity of God's") and the reasoning that led you to them.

The Trinity consists of God in the OT, Jesus Christ, and a Heavely Father God that has always been, or always started out as, being greater or higher than them both.

And if you want to know how I reasoned that out, or want to truly know more about that, and aren't just out to waste my time, then ask me, etc.

Because otherwise, then I'm done talking to you and/or wasting my time with you right now, etc.

But have other people who would truly like to know, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

It's particularly tricky when talking about beliefs, unshakeable or otherwise - people differ about the precise meanings of integrity, honesty, and dishonesty, and people's beliefs change, e.g. they may come to a belief they hold honestly, for reasons that were dishonest or lacking in integrity - people can be (and often are) manipulated into false beliefs.

I think wilful ignorance is dishonest, but again, people can be persuaded to honestly believe arguments they can see - even acknowledge - lack intellectual integrity. One of the central tenets of Christianity is that of faith, of belief without or despite evidence, and that resisting reasonable doubt is a laudable display of fortitude. This appears to be an appeal to emotion, both for the belief content and its justification. Wilful ignorance itself becomes the subject of belief and undermines reason by devaluing reasonable doubt.

I see all absolute unshakeable beliefs as a form of wilful ignorance - denial of alternative possibilities, however remote. This doesn't mean anything goes, but that, to paraphrase Descartes, everything can be doubted except that there is a doubter; as the fledgling Bayesian David Hume said, "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence" (modern philosophers might prefer 'credence' over 'belief' there). Or, as Wendell Johnson amusingly put it: "Two words you should always remember never to say: 'always' and 'never'".


No, I agree with you.


Their existence is a matter of faith; that their existence cannot be proved or disproved is a matter of definition ;-)

Honesty integrity and knowledge don't
just happen thro' 'spiritual" osmosis.

It requires constant effort.

 

[Astrid]

I asked about literal biblical truths. What you think Genesis should have been is not relevant. Six days is not literally billions of years, and one day is not literally hundreds of millions of years. To interpret them as such is a 'begging the question' fallacy.


Again, I was asking for your reasoning, not statements of belief.

You said that you've recently had, "more than a few breakthroughs" "trying to be as objective as possible" in discovering how it can be true that "the Bible is telling a real true story about a real true God, or a Trinity of God's".

I asked for examples of your breakthroughs in objectively determining how the bible can be literally true (about "a real true God, or a Trinity of God's") and the reasoning that led you to them.

"Breakthroughs" so described are
self deception, confirmation bias. The
opposite of objectivity.

 

[Neogaia777]

"Breakthroughs" so described are
self deception, confirmation bias. The
opposite of objectivity.

I'd really appreciate it if you would directly address me if you are going to talk about me, because that in itself, is dishonesty, self-deception, conformation bias, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

I'd really appreciate it if you would directly address me if you are going to talk about me, because that in itself, is dishonesty, self-deception, conformation bias, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

The thread is about the nature of imtegrity

I say the same about all self styled " truths" in the koran or book of mormon, the more so if none are described, evidenced, or identified.

But if you want it about you-

Your so called breakthroughs-which you so
far cannot or will not do more than claim-
have every appearance of being exactly as i
described.

Your little " I'm rubber and you are glue" bit isn't even cute.

So, now; here you are directly addressed!
As requested.

Can you deliver or is it just empty talk?

I'm betting $5 to the next homeless person you
will not.

 

[Neogaia777]

Your so called breakthroughs-which you so
far cannot or will not do more than claim,
have every appearance of being exactly as i
described.

Your little " I'm rubber and you are glue" bit isn't even cute.

So, now; you are directly addressed.

Can you deliver or is it just empty talk?

I'm betting $5 to the next homeless person you
will not.

And what did I claim again exactly?

That they would be possible, and would be within the realm of a real possibility?

And that they would not contradict the other truths that we know right now currently?

And can you tell me how I have violated that right now so far currently?

Because I'm betting you can't right now currently, etc.

I didn't say I could prove it to you, and I didn't even claim to have any evidence right now currently, but only told you that they would fall within the realm of being a real possibility, etc.

So, can you tell me how I have violated that so far right now currently?

And so far you have accused me of deceiving myself, of having bias, and not being objective, but I think it might be you that is doing that right now currently.

I am not deceiving myself by being or staying open to the possibilities, and I'm betting $5 to the next homeless person that I'm a whole heck of a lot less biased in any kind of way in just about everything than your are right now currently, especially when it comes to the Bible, religion, and/or Christianity, etc.

You seem to have a serious, serious chip on your shoulders when it comes to those subjects or those kinds of things right now currently, etc.

And my objectivity about almost everything is also far, far superior to yours, or is a whole heck of a lot more objective than yours ever is or probably could ever be right now currently, etc.

And yet here you are talking about "integrity".

God Bless.

 

[Astrid]

And what did I claim again exactly?

That they would be possible, and would be within the realm of a real possibility?

And that they would not contradict the other truths that we know right now currently?

And can you tell me how I have violated that right now so far currently?

Because I'm betting you can't right now currently, etc.

I didn't say I could prove it to you, and I didn't even claim to have any evidence right now currently, but only told you that they would fall within the realm of being a real possibility, etc.

So, can you tell me how I have violated that so far right now currently?

And so far you have accused me of deceiving myself, of having bias, and not being objective, but I think it might be you that is doing that right now currently.

I am not deceiving myself by being or staying open to the possibilities, and I'm betting $5 to the next homeless person that I'm a whole heck of a lot less biased in any kind of way in just about everything than your are right now currently, especially when it comes to the Bible, religion, and/or Christianity, etc.

You seem to have a serious, serious chip on your shoulders when it comes to those subjects or those kinds of things right now currently, etc.

And my objectivity about almost everything is also far, far superior to yours, or is a whole heck of a lot more objective than yours ever is or probably could ever be right now currently, etc.

And yet here you are talking about "integrity".

God Bless.

Terrif. You dont even know what you've claimed.

Dodging and then thrashing about like a foul-
hooked alligator truing to bite something, anything,
except provide examples,logic or anything else re
these "breakthroughs'.

If you read the slightly amended post to which you
responded you will note i clarified that while you identified wit it, it's not even about you, but a way of thinking and style of posting in general.

 

[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.

" no. Just made that up, have no examples"

 

[Neogaia777]

Terrif. You dont even know what you've claimed.

Dodging and then thrashing about like a foul-
hooked alligator truing to bite something, anything,
except provide examples,logic or anything else re
these "breakthroughs'.

If you read the slightly amended post to which you
responded you will note i clarified that while you identified wit it, it's not even about you, but a way of thinking and style of posting in general.

Do you even realize you just said absolutely nothing?

You couldn't address anything I said, so you just spent a lot of time saying absolutely nothing, etc.

Either way, I think I'm just going to be putting you on my "ignore" list from now on, as all of any of your activity on here ever, ever really ever does anything at all for anybody, and is not even worth my investing my time reading, etc.

So, have fun being on my ignore list, ok.

Bye-bye.