spin

I do appreciate the conundrum, but we are dealing with different things. You use methods to structure your ideas and to communicate with other people. Such methods usually cash out to having a logical basis. What I advocate to you is consistency in logical approach.

Now, logic depends totally on valid premises.

Atheism is a belief, isn't it? "Agnostic" is a simple description, ie "not knowing".

The structures themselves are not intellectual. They are just constructed either intellectually or not (or one of those shades of grey between). My current views support the structures, not vice versa. Unless you have a provisional approach to the world, you'll have trouble living in it. People are very often left behind, not being able to adjust to a changing world. One turns to seemingly unchanging things because they cannot adapt to the changes in our world.

(Logically, one turns to something because they can see no better alternative.)

But to return to your question let me reformulate the question from my earlier message: would I knowingly accept a lobotomy? A lobotomy, assuming a painless job, reduces my capacities. It may be more comfortable to reduce one's capacities, but it is a choice whose implications are clearly debilitating intellectually, bringing us back to your original statement regarding intellectual suicide.


spin

runnerryan

Spin
But what if the best evidence tells you not to change? Both of us feel that intellectual honesty demands we hold to our current beliefs, it seems like for this discussion to go further we need to get into why we think our current views are intellectual respectable.

spin

If you can pass the forest and trees test , the best evidence would tell you you're probably ok, but I get the idea you want the superglue to hold you permanently. Well, you should know that you'll never have it. Anything can come along at any time and with one sudden blow render the superglue useless. There was an old tailor in my street who has been made redundant through new market necessities, but what can he do? He only knows how to be a tailor. He doesn't have the mental tools to be able to continue in some other profession.

Intellectual honesty is nothing directly to do with holding beliefs.

Now, I have difficulties believing that the sun will rise tomorrow, so I don't consider I have too many beliefs up my sleave. I have been advocating a methodological rigor, nothing more. (As our knowledge changes, so must our mental constructs. The red queen has to run very fast just to stand still. If you don't keep up... you end up... nowhere.)

We need some external yardstick with which to measure our methods... how do we get to see the forest unless we step out of it?


spin

the_cave

Well...if that's how you're going to define "understanding", fine. I was interpreting it in a broader sense.

Amlodhi

At one particular instance in the past, I was having a discussion with a religious apologist who had very little awareness of any information beyond biblical doctrine.

Upon my informing him about some of this information and recommending some specific sources he replied, "But that's dangerous. It seems like every time people start reading a bunch of other stuff they end up losing their faith".

I dearly wish that I'd had your lobotomy analogy to hand at the time.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

theophilus

This is a fascinating and instructive post (though not uncommon on these boards).

TD "knows" that his friend is wrong, but doesn't have a compelling argument to prove his position. As a Christian, I certainly think I have good reasons for my beliefs. I don't make an argument and then go look for help from my friends.

I might need help understanding a concept or how an argument would apply to my apologetic, but I don't just assert that "you're wrong" without some foundation.

TD exhibits exactly the same trait that unbelievers here criticize in believers, viz, he knows he's right even though he can't defend his knowledge.

It's amazing and a symptom of real a lack of integrity that no one has called him on this. No one has asked him for his "proof" or "how" he knows his friend is wrong.

Toto

Theophilus - I think that you have grossly misinterpreted the opening question.

The question was how he could make his friend realize that he was 'living in denial'. It's a plea for help in persuasive techniques in getting a friend to recognize facts in front of their face, not for reasons to believe that something is true or not.

Is this on the Theist Talking Points page for today? Accuse all nonbelievers of not living up to their own ideals? You definitely missed the boat on this one.