The cardinal sin of philosophy is dishonesty. The severity of the transgression is proportional to the degree to which one is conscious of dishonesty.
At present, I still feel like I'm forming the general tone and conventions of this blog. Today, I'm establishing the central ethic of this blog. Dishonesty will not be tolerated. I will seek out dishonesty related to the issues covered by this blog wherever I can find it, and call those responsible to account. I invite readers of this blog to hold me to the same standard. The only appropriate response to public dishonesty is public repentance, and that is what will be expected.
I believe dishonesty accounts for most of the distrust and misinformation related to the issues I plan to cover in this blog. I have seen dishonest statements made by atheists, christians, and everything in-between and to either side. Dishonesty comes in several forms. Some of the most common are:
- Quotes taken out of context.
- Outdated quotes, where new discoveries may be relevant.
- Intentionally leaving out known information that hurts your argument or claim.
- Using information once commonly believed, but now known to be false (assuming you know of and agree with the current consensus).
- Pretending to be an expert on things you are not.
- Ascribing beliefs or motives to people that you either know they don't have or don't know that they do have. In the second case, it might be OK to say "I think A believes P".
I believe that, whatever your goal, dishonesty is a foul means. Over time, I believe dishonesty has created far more animosity and closed more doors than it has made converts. I also believe that it makes the most hardened anti-converts, who, having been lied to, will no longer entertain anything that sounds like what came out of the liars' mouths. Dishonesty turns the fertile landscape of rational discussion into a choked, twisted wasteland.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, I'm willing to call you on this.
ReplyDeleteI think your use of the word "Christian" is dishonest in this context. If you're really intending a sincere honest philosophical discussion, you need to be discussing something specific. And "Christian" doesn't much refer to anything specific. People who have identified themselves as "Christian" have held a dizzying array of beliefs.
Does a Christian have to believe that Jesus existed as an actual person on earth, or just as a god on some mystical plane? Most modern Christians go with the "person", but it's not clear that was always the consensus. And there's certainly been a difference of opinion.
If a Christian believes that Jesus was a person, do they have to believe he was also divine? Again, Christians differ on that.
The entrance requirements for heaven are a particular and significant differentiating point for Christians. Does one have to believe in Jesus to get in? Is that all one needs to believe? Does one need to be baptized? Is baptism sufficient? Does one need to atone for sins? Etc. There's no consensus on how to get into heaven among Christians.
Which books are part of the bible? Which versions? Is the bible literally true? Are the old testament laws still in effect? All of them? Which ones? Again, no consensus among Christians.
So, I think you need to restrict yourself to Henkelism, and clearly define what that is. It's dishonest to call it Christianity, since there are any number of people who consider themselves Christian who disagree with Henkelism, whatever it is. And, most important, the term "Christian" has lots and lots of connotations to everyone, but they're wildly different, and often incompatible for different people. So, using the term is misleading.
- Marc
N - Just discovered your blog. Enjoyed. Keep on! - s hartland
ReplyDelete@Marc - If I'm honest, I find it hard to take your post entirely seriously. If I'm correct, your argument is of the form:
ReplyDeleteT is a term which is, in my opinion quite vague, perhaps too vague to be used meaningfully.
P has a blog which he claims is about T.
-----
P is dishonest.
I don't even know how to go about defeating that argument other than to say that the conclusion certainly doesn't follow necessarily from the premises given, and I don't really see how it follows at all. I'll try a reductio:
French culture includes many subcultures, some of which are exactly opposite one another in some ways, and so the term "French culture" is a vague term.
Francois has a blog which he claims is about French culture, and, though this blog may cover aspects of several of the major subcultures, it most likely won't or can't cover all of them.
----
Francois is dishonest to say his blog is about French Culture.
I think this claim is absurd. If you don't agree, we may have a hard time communicating.
The first argument might be improved by adding the following:
P agrees with me that T is too vague to be used meaningfully.
Because then I would be intentionally using a term that is vague, possibly with the intent to deceive. However, at least at present, that premise is false. I do not agree. I believe that the word is commonly used in a way that is, for the most part, compatible with its definition in several encyclopedias, including the Columbia encyclopedia and Wikipedia. I believe this usage is sufficiently concrete and specific to apply to my blog in a topical fashion (which is how I have applied it), although certainly my own beliefs are more specific and narrow in many cases. Thus, whether you are right or not, I do not believe you are, defeating the premise above, unless you'd like to argue that you know better what my beliefs are than I do.
So I believe you have no case for an accusation of dishonesty. You might still be able to make the case that the word Christianity is too vague, but until such time as I am convinced of that and, after that time, refuse to discontinue any inappropriate use, I don't believe I can be accused of dishonesty.
I do agree that, to have honest philosophical discussions, I need to choose something more specific than "Chrisitianity in general", and so I will endeavour always to make the individual posts (which may be the seeds of discussions) more specific than the overall genre of the blog, and I will try to make them sufficiently specific as to promote honest discussion. I will certainly fail sometimes.
Ok, fair enough if it's just the generic subject of the blog. But, a couple quotes from your first post:
ReplyDelete"Apologetics is the act of presenting the rational defense or basis of the Christian faith." In particular, I have a problem with the first of the last three words; it implies pretty strongly that there is a single thing called "the Christian faith"; some non-trival common belief system shared by Paul, whoever the author of the Gospel of Thomas was, Augustine, Jean Calvin, Martin Luther, William Blake, Henry VIII, Joseph Smith, Pat Roberts and yourself.
A little later, "As Christians, we believe".
Later still, "arguments that Christianity is true".
Specifically, this is intellectually dishonest, because it implies "All Christians believe basically the same thing. We may have slight differences, but those are minor and unimportant." That's a perfectly good starting point if you're looking to sell used cars to people with different belief systems who all identify as Christians; not so much if you want to have an honest intellectual discussion about those belief systems.
So, fine, perhaps it will prove to be an accurate description of your blog. If you're careful in your use of the word "Christian" going forward, I'll be happy. (To be totally honest here: my happiness is in no way predicated on your word choice. That's just a rhetorical flourish.)
For what it's worth, as a non-Christian in a Christian land, I'm somewhat sensitive to this point. And, historically, the comfort different Christian denominations currently have with each other is a pretty new thing. A lot of people thought Kennedy was unelectable because he was a "papist"; that, of course was wrong, but would almost certainly have been true thirty years before that. And of course, there are still tensions in Ireland.
By the way, how did you know my friend Francois had a blog about French culture?
- Marc
>>>"Apologetics is the act of presenting the rational defense or basis of the Christian faith." In particular, I have a problem with the first of the last three words; it implies pretty strongly that there is a single thing called "the Christian faith"<<<
ReplyDeleteI think the things I specifically mentioned as things "we, as Christians" believe are pretty widely accepted, though I'm aware that not everyone who calls herself a Christian believes those things. I do believe that there is a faith that unites the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians, as is evidenced by the near universal acceptance of the Nicene Creed (as always, there are quibbles about details, and I don't want to minimize those quibbles, but overall the acceptance is mostly universal and unconditional), so I don't mind talking about "the Christian faith".
I would be happy, however, to create a post about how I am going to tend to define "Christian" and "Christianity". I think that will serve better than using a different word, since I don't know another word that will include those who genuinely believe the common tenets of the major, uh, Christian creeds (there I go again), whether one of thousands of flavors of Protestant, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox or what-have-you. I'm best described as a Protestant in terms of my beliefs, but I hope the content of this blog would be in many cases acceptable to, and in some cases at least useful or interesting to, for example, Catholics.
>>> Specifically, this is intellectually dishonest, because it implies "All Christians believe basically the same thing. We may have slight differences, but those are minor and unimportant." <<<
I certainly don't think we all believe the same thing, and I certainly don't think the differences are unimportant. For example, I think that whether you are Arminian or Calvinistic often impacts the way you view your responsibilities towards others, and that the impact does matter. However, I believe both Arminians and Calvinists can genuinely hold to the same faith on several core issues. There's a separation between important and essential. I tend to define essential in terms much like the Nicene creed. Much of the other stuff is really important, but I would not say that a person who differed with me on one of those important issues was "of a different faith" I'll try to post something about this to clarify.
I think the phrase "arguments that Christianity is true" might be better stated "arguments that Christianity, or some version of Christianity, is true", since I'll maintain that some apologetic arguments address only issues that are pretty universally held (the existence of God), while others try to prove a specific interpretation of the Bible (e.g. young earth creationism), which is not nearly universally held among Christians. I will edit the post accordingly, and thank you for the improvement.
>>> By the way, how did you know my friend Francois had a blog about French culture? <<<
His name is Francois--what else would he have a blog about?
Upon looking a little closer, I decided not to change the phrase "arguments that Christianity is true" since that phrase is in the context of talking about something I personally haven't done on this blog. It seemed better to handle the issue at the top, where I describe what apologetics is. I think this will suffice to make it clear that I understand not all apologetic arguments are universally acceptable to all Christians.
ReplyDeleteNathan: I like the point you make about having a blog about French culture. Individual members of a team of doctors that go deep into the Congo to treat people may bring different medicines and differnt training to bear on those they find, but someone who says you can't have a blog about all of them because they have differnt training -- or because there are also witch doctors in the Congo -- would make better use of his time by getting some medical training and going there himself, or at least encouraging those who do.
ReplyDelete