Intellectual Honesty

This a video response to:

Beyond Belief '06 - Sam Harris (Clip 1)

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• intellectual
• honesty
• spiritual
• proof
• belief
• seeing
• hearing

[todaysprogramming]

As long as we continue talking and debating and sharing perspectives (even if it consists of childish flaming) on the things that matter the most to us, then humanity will improve. Atheists are going to become more spiritual, and theists are going to become less religious; we will recognize that we were all on the same side all along, and humanity and compassion will be more evident in our lives. if everyone keeps talking, debating, flaming, maybe we'll join in the middle before it's too late.

[Thorzon]

I would certainly agree that continuing to dialog is extremely important...althought I'm not so sure about the childish flaming. :)

[vktrsx]

In a nutshell: "intellectual honesty" means NOT believing in Santa Claus without evidence.

You can replace "Santa Claus" with any other character and the formula works the same.

P.S. When you said "supernatural honesty" I laughed so hard that I spat corn chips and clam dip on my monitor. Thanks a lot. :-(

[Thorzon]

If you refuse to see that there's a supernatural side to this universe, that's what I'm talking about.

[samdathi]

Oh my word. This guy takes about half an hour to make a point. Boring. You ain't no sam Harris, my friend

[Thorzon]

Thanks for the compliment (on not being a Sam Harris). I'll take boring over intellectual dishonesty any day. :)

[trinijoe69]

All reality is subject to the perception and belief of the observer. If you think about it, everyone is right. A person does not adopt a belief thinking that it is wrong. From your perspective it may seem wrong, but that also is subject to your own beliefs. Based on your beliefs, you filter the soup of information that makes up reality for bits of information to validate your own personal collection of beliefs.

[HowieInTheUK]

It is so amusing to see what desperately lame arguments theists will use. You seem to achieve new heights in inanity with your basic argument that reality isn't really real so therefore god is real. Duh.....

Intellectual honesty is not twisting and perverting all logic and reason to attempt to prove something you WISH were true. You and and your arguments are a perfect example of how twisted and silly such intellectually dishonest efforts are.

[mucalinda]

Thorzon Even the Matrix becomes a possibility. This is the problem philosophers have struggled with for years. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am". Buddhists and many mystics say there is no I to do the thinking. So, Reality could be anything. But if we do use logic and experiment as one strand in our attempt (if there is an 'our') to make sense of our Universe, then Science does a pretty good job in that direction.

[mucalinda]

Thorzon ...including the mind's own ability to heal the body. Doctors have understood the power of placebos for years. As to what one bases Reality on, if we don't base Reality on what we see, hear, feel, test and use our logic on, then what do we base it on? The Supernatural then becomes just one guess in an infinity of possible guesses. Snakewater, ju-ju charms, gut feelings, Astrology, sacrifice of virgins to Natures Gods, voices in the head, etc etc all then have equal validity.

[mucalinda]

Thorzon Science isn't just about 'seeing' or 'hearing' or 'feeling'. It's also about logic and testing and re-testing and cross referencing and asking others to review your hypotheses. So presumably 'optical illusions' would eventually be found to be just that. Also, unlike religion, Science is willing to say "We don't know, let's keep looking for an answer". If people have apparant 'miraculous' cures , then every possible reason should be looked at .......contd

[sweetsweatyfeet]

The request is really to present the evidence for your belief (since YOU are advancing the theory). And don't respond by demanding that people prove you false (because you cannot prove a negative). The human imagination knows no limit to the number or the theories and claims that can be proposed regarding the origin of life. Are we to grant plausibility to any theory unless we can proof it false? The burden of proof is ALWAYS the responsibility of those who advance the theory.

[todaysprogramming]

well...i tend to believe all exchanges change both parties, with each side adopting traits of the other, simply by interacting, regardless of whether either of them notice or admit it consciously...as much as we may dislike flaming, i think it indicates an early stage of a constructive dialogue. if a person flames you, they took a peek at what you have to say, and even if they consciously dislike/disagree/flame, ultimately, your thought now swims in their mind amongst their own.

all the best!

[todaysprogramming]

clam dip?