We need to talk about apologetics and intellectual honesty.

[bluegreenearth]

1. Whether it is intentional or unintentional, deceiving or misleading yourself and/or others by way of fallacious reasoning is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

2. To persist in the use and propagation of fallacious reasoning and misleading argumentation after those specific approaches have been demonstrated to be unreliable or otherwise unjustified is to be deliberately duplicitous.

3. If a god exists and embodies the moral qualities most theists attribute to such a deity, then apologists have a divine obligation to expect and ensure that the reasoning and argumentation they employ in defense of their theistic claims are intellectually honest.

Wikipedia describes intellectual honesty as:

...an applied method of problem solving characterized by a nonpartisan and honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

• One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;

• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted, even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;

• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

On the outset, I will acknowledge that Wikipedia is just one possible source for this type of information and is not intended to be perceived as authoritative. Nevertheless, my rationale for quoting Wikipedia was that, for the purposes of this topic, it provides a fairly uncontroversial description what most people commonly understand "intellectual honesty" to mean. So, it seems like a reasonable enough foundation upon which to initiate our discussion.

How could the practice of apologetics be modified to make it more intellectually honest?

Please note: The question above does not intend to imply that all apologetic practices are already intellectually dishonest.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

For debate - How could apologists better prevent their personal beliefs from interfering with the pursuit of truth?

One way would be to stick to one debate topic at a time.
I often get "Gish Gallop" instead of a conversation.

I don't think this is always done intentionally.
People aren't taught intellectual humility or honest debate tactics in churches.

People are generally taught WHAT do defend, not NOW to defend it.

But that's not an "apologetics" problem.. it's a human problem.
Most normal people don't know how to make clear arguments, and most people do not know how to debate with personal integrity.

For example, by adding three debate topics at the end of your post, it messes things up for me.
My reply to three questions for debate will be much harder to read than if I addressed them one at a time.

My tactic is to address one topic at a time in separate replies.. but I feel that I would be juggling 3 balls at a time, not just one at a time. Take it from me, I'm no circus performer.

Your post loses focus and power by the dilution.

I would prefer if you narrowed the scope of your argument down to ONE CLEAR conclusion that we could debate.

I loved how you started off with a definition of intellectual honesty. I'm not loving that there are three debate topics "in one" in a kind of Trinity existence.

To answer your debate question more directly, I would say that critical thinking skills include intellectual honesty, self-criticism, knowing what the word evidence means, looking at the best epistemic methods, such as science and and philosophical critical analysis, rely on evidence, reason, and methods for identifying and correcting error.

That would greatly help anyone who is trying to defend a position without falling into a blindness caused by bias confirmation.

Of course, these methods have been known to cause a leaving of the faith.. and that's not what motivates apologists... What motivates apologists is finding ways to keep the faith all the while pretending to persuade hard core skeptics, like me.

Their tactics can't work on someone who comes prepared with critical thinking skills.
Their outdated arguments just aren't persuasive.. and they all seem a little surprised by that.

All of my efforts to explain the bad reasoning provided in every single apologetic argument that I know of only expose their reliance of faith when they reply that I lack the faith required to understand what they are talking about.

Faith can indeed replace understanding.
I'd rather understand than be faithful to a belief.

In my search for clarity and understanding, I have found that talking about one thing at a time is best than covering all the bases at one time.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

For debate - How could apologists better demonstrate that they have not purposefully omitted relevant facts and information, especially where such data may contradict a theistic claim?

_______________________________________

They could disclose contrary evidence, acknowledge uncertainty, address serious objections, cite primary sources, and explain their selection criteria rather than presenting only supporting evidence.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

For debate - How could apologists better present facts in an unbiased manner and not twist them to give misleading impressions or fallaciously support one view over another

_____________________________________________

They could distinguish facts from interpretations, acknowledge contrary evidence, use consistent standards, accurately represent opposing arguments, disclose uncertainty, and avoid selectively presenting evidence.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Ray the atheist in post #2]

I've revised the debate topic accordingly.

[POI]

How could the practice of apologetics be modified to make it more intellectually honest?

As alluded to prior, 1) try to reframe from fallacious reasoning (and also) 2) removing one-self from as much personal bias as possible. I'm sure there's more?

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]

How could the practice of apologetics be modified to make it more intellectually honest?

____________________________________

The good news:

I am thanking you for making your post easier to read, and having just one debate topic to think about.

It's shorter.. and it's much less overwhelming.
Theology is very messy, and critical thinking IS HARD WORK.

It's a hell of a lot easier to sit there and speculate.
I used to do that in bars with my friends for laughs and giggles.

I can't do critical thinking when Im drunk.

So, I really appreciate it when someone who has a bone to gnaw to make it quick and dirty.. to the point.

I now have more time to think about your real question and time to think of a reasonable answer.

Less is sometimes better than more.

The bad news:

Here's something else that struck me by your question.. it's so biased.

Your question assumes that the apologists aren't being HONEST.

Right off the bat, you have showed your cards.
You question is infected with a negative bias.

So, maybe a friend would ask you " How could the practice of counter-apologetics be modified to make it more intellectually honest? "

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #1]
Right off the bat, you have showed your cards.
You question is infected with a negative bias.

So, maybe a friend would ask you " How could the practice of counter-apologetics be modified to make it more intellectually honest? "

That criticism did cross my mind when composing the OP. In my defense, the question doesn't necessary accuse the apologist of being intellectually dishonest because the qualifier "more" allows for the possibility of improving upon an apologetic practice that may already exhibit some intellectually honest qualities. Nevertheless, I can understand how someone could interpret the question in the way you've suggested. So, maybe I'll revise the OP again to include a statement clarifying that I am not necessarily accusing all apologists of being intellectually dishonest.