Some Schmo wrote:Actually, when it comes right down to it, the toughest thing that any apologist has to defend is their own intellectual honesty.
That's why it's difficult to take them seriously and not view them as liars, in denial, or simply stupid (or at least, intellectually deficient).
I think there are lots of people that struggle with intellectual honesty. Actually, it seems to me most people struggle just with the honesty part of it.
Some Schmo wrote:Toughest thing for any Mormon to defend, in my opinion, is the first vision. All other BS flows from that. It is the root of all Mormon BS. Throw that one out the window, and there's no need to even touch the other stuff.
People who claim to have seen angels, ghosts, deities, or whatever are locked up, and for good reason.
No one has locked me up yet and I've claimed all of the above.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Some Schmo wrote:Actually, when it comes right down to it, the toughest thing that any apologist has to defend is their own intellectual honesty.
That's why it's difficult to take them seriously and not view them as liars, in denial, or simply stupid (or at least, intellectually deficient).
Which one am I?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Some Schmo wrote:Actually, when it comes right down to it, the toughest thing that any apologist has to defend is their own intellectual honesty.
That's why it's difficult to take them seriously and not view them as liars, in denial, or simply stupid (or at least, intellectually deficient).
I don't think it's a question of intellectual dishonesty or stupidity. I made it work for me for many years, and I didn't consider myself in denial or stupid or dishonest, and I still don't think I was. The issue for me was that all evidence was seen through a prism of belief and testimony. To steal from Thomas Kuhn, my paradigm worked because I was able to account for all the evidence and dismiss the anomalous. It wasn't until the anomalies were too numerous and too undeniable that the accumulated weight of the proverbial "shelf" collapsed.
Maybe I'm presuming too much, but I assume that The Nehor and other believers simply see the evidence in light of their testimonies instead of evaluating their testimonies in light of the evidence.
barrelomonkeys wrote:I think there are lots of people that struggle with intellectual honesty.
Question to show my ignorance: what is meant by "intellectual honesty"?
If it means equally considering all sides of issues, then I submit that intellectual honesty may not be so desirable. Some taboos and other such things are probably very good things such as taboos against cannibalism and statutory rape. I also think it wise not to have to challenge everything I believe by giving equal consideration to alchemy, pyrimid power, or conspiracy theories.
Last edited by Analytics on Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Runtu wrote:Maybe I'm presuming too much, but I assume that The Nehor and other believers simply see the evidence in light of their testimonies instead of evaluating their testimonies in light of the evidence.
I think we do both. Indeed, I think we do both in other areas as well.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Runtu wrote:Maybe I'm presuming too much, but I assume that The Nehor and other believers simply see the evidence in light of their testimonies instead of evaluating their testimonies in light of the evidence.
I think we do both. Indeed, I think we do both in other areas as well.
You may be right. It just seems to me that, among believers, the testimony is the one unassailable fact of reality.
barrelomonkeys wrote:I think there are lots of people that struggle with intellectual honesty.
Question to show my ignorance: what is meant by "intellectual honesty"?
If it means equally considering all sides of issues, then I submit that intellectual honesty may not be so desirable. Some taboos and other such things are probably very good things such as taboos against cannibalism and statutory rape. I also think it wise not to have to challenge everything I believe by giving equal consideration to alchemy, pyrimid power, or conspiracy theories.
Heh. I certainly struggle with it. A LOT! I wasn't passing judgment. Just making an observation.