Re: Intellectual Dishonesty

On Sep 23, 11:32 pm, Dave Corsello <d.corse...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
having the truth is not the sole important aspect of intellectual
honesty. the method by which we arrive at truth is also just as
important (if not moreso).

Why and in what ways? (Read as me being curious to read your answer,
not with a challenging or angry tone)

as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. even
random chance will yield correct results sometimes. that does not make
random guessing a viable way to solve problems. an intellectually
honest person will use methods that have accuracy rates that are
better than random chance, and their confidence levels will be
proportional to the accuracy rate of the method being used. science
has a damn good accuracy rate. faith's accuracy rate is not only no
better than random chance, but it does not even offer a way to
discriminate between contradictory results.


when somebody promotes the idea that religious faith is a method of
arriving at truth, that person is not being honest.

Even when valid, supporting historical evidence is provided?

religion cannot
tell us what happens after death any more than random guessing can.
(in fact, i would claim that religion is doing nothing but random
guessing.) the fact that there are hundreds to thousands of religious
authorities using faith and arriving at contradictory conclusions
about what happens to me when i die, with literally no way to
determine which, if any, are correct, should clue you in to this.

I don't want to minimize the importance of this emotionally charged
issue. I think it's a topic of its own.

to point at a few random guesses that had a 50/50 shot at being
correct, especially when every other religion can do this as well, and
especially when it ignores the glaring failed guesses, is not
impressive in the slightest.

In the case of Lemaitre, I don't think that this is a fair
characterization. His Big Bang Theory certainly was not a random
guess made by an uneducated man. It stands as one of the pillars on
which all other modern cosmology is built. Lemaitre was a Catholic
priest, and it seems likely to me that his theory had it's origin, at
least in part, in his theology (Einstein objected to the theory in
part because he felt that it was too similar to Judeo-Christian
concept of creation). However, for reasons that I posted in another
reply, I don't think that his science was pursued in support of a
religious agenda.

certainly lemaitre was using evidence, but were the theologians before
him doing so? all else being equal, if lemaitre were a hindu or a
buddhist, would he have supported an eternal universe? if the evidence
in fact supported an eternal universe, would lemaitre have accepted
this and still published?


I do agree that multiple choice applies where the ultimate fate of the
universe is concerned--there was pretty much a one-in-three chance of
getting it right. But I don't think it applies to the concepts of
string and quantum gravity theories and their apparent compatibility
with Biblical cosmology. (Although Hawking might debate a clear
compatibility between the Bible and quantum gravity, I've read
analyses in the archives of this forum that lead me, in my limited
understanding of the theory, to believe that they are compatible.)

Please don't think that I ignore failed guesses. Issues like the age
of the earth are very perplexing to me from a theological
perspective. They're just not perplexing enough to make me reconsider
my entire worldview. Besides, in 1920, my uneducated Sunday school
teacher character would have been viewed by scientists to be out of
sync with reality. And, in spite of incompatibilities in some
details, I, personally, find the compatibilities compelling.

why are there incompatibilities at all? is the omniscient and
omnipotent creator of the universe unable to competently describe it
to his prophets?


Your point is well taken regarding the multiplicity of religious
concepts of the universe. Each concept could be said to be in
relative harmony or disharmony with modern cosmology by similar
analysis.

--Dave


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... turn to avoid giving an honest answer to a simple question. ... you do the gravest dishonour to the name of the religion you claim ... arena with exotic and novelistic junk of warped space, ... dominated ever since,having neither heart nor head it has eventually ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: BELIEF
    ... what they see as our lack of respect for their religion. ... Honest debating should be about respecting the truth, ... then it is simply a matter of integrity or honesty to ensure that such ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Religion (was: god 0.1.0 released)
    ... What about the non-Judaic practitioners ... If the ten commandments are displayed in a museum, ... and let's really leave room for *anyones* religion. ... time for me to be perfectly honest. ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: I NEED AN EXCELLENT CHRISTIAN DJ FOR OUR NEXT MONTHLY DANCE!
    ... Peter, if you wish to continue this that has nothing to do with the ... If the question is an honest one, I'd say it deserves an answer (it doesn't have hte right to an answerbut politeness means it should be ... But yours aren't honest ones. ... >> in the face of evidence to the contrary or that religion (whatever ...
    (rec.arts.dance)