willful ignorance + mental sloth + typical human apathy <> faith

[alreadyGone]

 

Willful ignorance + mental sloth + typical human apathy do not equal "faith".

 

Discuss please-

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I was told there would be no math.

[alreadyGone]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I was told there would be no math.

x2

 

 

[sdelsolray]

4 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

 

Willful ignorance + mental sloth + typical human apathy do not equal "faith".

 

Discuss please-

 

Redefined (a bit):

 

Willful ignorance + intellectual dishonesty + laziness = religious faith

[midniterider]

What is intellectual dishonesty?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, midniterider said:

What is intellectual dishonesty?

I honestly don't know. 

[alreadyGone]

9 hours ago, midniterider said:

What is intellectual dishonesty?

 

To value what you wish to be true more than the truth.

To assert attitude and prejudice as fact.

 

To pretend or believe that there are no absolutes, that "it's all relative".

To accept two or more contradictions as truth.

 

 

[alreadyGone]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I honestly don't know. 

 

I see what you did there... I think.

I'm slow and dull, but I don't give up easily.

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, alreadyGone said:

 

To value what you wish to be true more than the truth.

 

 

How does intellectual honesty relate to evidence? Is evidence the deciding factor in truth? Or can evidence be interpreted? 

 

We had a thread a while back talking about which 'interpretation' of the double slit experimental evidence was the truth. I guess there's a few different interpretations. Some people have their own personal interpretations. Some people go with what mainstream science agrees on. How do we know which interpretation to go with? When should we go with our own interpretation? When should we go with the herd? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[florduh]

6 hours ago, midniterider said:

We had a thread a while back talking about which 'interpretation' of the double slit experimental evidence was the truth.

I don't think anyone here, other than perhaps a physicist if we have one, is qualified to make such a determination. How are we, the unwashed masses, supposed to make an informed decision on something qualified professionals can't totally agree upon? I'm referring to matters of verifiable scientific inquiry, not theology. Professional theologians don't have a leg to stand on and haven't for thousands of years.

[alreadyGone]

22 minutes ago, florduh said:

...Professional theologians...

 

"Professional theologians"

 

Not laughing at you, please understand, but that's hilarious.

 

I'd never really thought of it in quite that way.

Thanks for the giggle!

[LogicalFallacy]

I disagree with all of these points being intellectual dishonesty. I think they are all flaws of thinking (with the exception of the absolute one... that one is interesting) but not necessarily intellectual dishonesty imo.

 

On 9/8/2020 at 2:10 AM, alreadyGone said:

To value what you wish to be true more than the truth.

 

This is merely wishful thinking, not necessarily being dishonest.

 

Quote

To assert attitude and prejudice as fact.

 

Again, not dishonest, just wrong.

 

Quote

To pretend or believe that there are no absolutes, that "it's all relative".

 

Again, not necessarily intellectually dishonest. (A discussion on absolutes would actually be interesting. Might think about it one day.)

 

Quote

To accept two or more contradictions as truth.

 

This is essentially cognitive dissonance, again not necessarily intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

I understand intellectual dishonesty to be advocating a position which you know is not true, or at the least fudging it somewhat to suit your position. 

 

Here's an article on it I found interesting. https://www.shanesnow.com/articles/intellectual-dishonesty/#articles/what-is-intellectual-dishonesty 

 

 

What is willful ignorance? 

 

Having a fact pointed out to you but not accepting it? Creationists have evolution explained to them all the time yet they do not accept it. Are they willfully ignorant? 

 

According to the bible, we here are willfully ignorant: "2 Peter 3:5 - For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

They say ignorance is bliss.  Happily, I wouldn't know.

[midniterider]

On 9/6/2020 at 2:39 PM, alreadyGone said:

 

Willful ignorance + mental sloth + typical human apathy do not equal "faith".

 

Discuss please-

 

Faith is belief in something without evidence. Willful ignorance, mental sloth and apathy may be contributing factors to religious faith, but no, they are not in themselves faith.