The Trap of Intellectual Honesty and the Freedom from Moral Theism
A common flawed belief of theists is “You can’t have morals without god” or “You can’t have morality without religion.” It would seem to be a belief of theists to conclude that for one to care about morality it can only be because a god exists, believing that a god/religion is and knows all good, and atheists or nonreligious cannot know good.
You cannot appeal to our morality and then say we do not have morality. Likewise, you cannot appeal to your morality superiority and then demonstrate errors in following intellectual honesty thus a sound morality.
Most theists like to act as if only they have morality and then presuppose atheist intellectual honesty or try to inspire atheist intellectual honesty thus believing atheists either have or can easily know good/morality.
This is clearly evident in how theists/religionists question atheists about naturalism, the limits of science knowledge or epistemology knowledge. In general, believing they can conquer us atheists by getting us to agree we can’t be 100% sure of all things. However, in doing so they know they can appeal to our atheist intellectual honesty thus godless knowledge of good, but by doing so they have conceded to atheist morality even without realizing it.
In addition, atheists often wrongly assume and presuppose theists will use intellectual honesty, such as that the believer is intellectually honest, when relatively all theists must in fact be somewhat intellectually dishonest and use faith as knowledge, justification, and certainty. This is a two pronged part of the faith fallacy which requires atheists to be the most intellectually honest. Theists try to force an appeal to philosophic skepticism that even naturalism must be in question and then utilize special pleading fallacy that theism does not have to appeal to philosophic skepticism, if naturalism must be questioned because theists can place supernaturalism in its place due to faith or some other nonsense, which is intellectual dishonesty. As if what you see and can prove (naturalism) requires doubt, how much more doubt should be leveled at that which is not see and has no proof or evidence at all (supernaturalism).
Naturalism roughly involves what you see and can prove in or by empirical observation and testing such through the scientific method. Naturalism’s view is mainly that natural explanations best explain or are the most valid and reliable to identify, understand, and explain all phenomena in reality without any need to resort to supernatural conclusions or purpose. Theists/religionists question atheists about naturalism, saying naturalism cannot give an adequate account of the origin of life arising from nonlife. Thus god, for some unprovable reason or argument from ignorance fallacy, god of the gaps!?
Intellectual honesty would inspire the integrity of truth to be everything, no matter if the truth devotes from ones belief. Thus, a true champion of intellectual honesty will not allow the truth to be subject to beliefs rather the motivation would be to have beliefs that are subject to the truth. Furthermore, intellectual honesty must follow and purposefully utilize relevant facts and information, not willfully hide or disregard things that may contradict or disprove one’s beliefs. In addition, relevant facts and information is not misused or misrepresented, to give misleading or false impressions.
Without intellectual honesty the scholars of religion would seem to be moral relativists or moral avoiders and what I must conclude are fallacy-fueled bullies placing their loved myths above Intellectual integrity. Yes time and again the many scholars or champions of religion claim moral superiority and demonstrate nothing of the kind, instead, like the conmen before them, pushing supernatural Dogmatic-Propaganda over natural reality and preying on the ignorance of others with their intellectual dishonesty. Sadly, this seems to just be the only championed course of gods or religion because of the faith fallacy. They must invariably rely on ignorance and /or dishonesty as a means by which to exemplify their smokescreen of misdirection, lies, and wishful thinking. What needs to be understood is that the scholars or champions of religion who willfully commit fallacies such as the ones used in favor of the faith fallacy, like the special pleading fallacy or the argument from ignorance fallacy, which are forms of intellectual dishonesty.
Therefore, it all comes down to intellectual honesty and the ability to hold the same standers to one’s self as you wish others to agree to. I would explore all to have and strive to exhibit intellectual honesty, thus I dare the scholars or the champions religion to also, be honest in the ethics of belief and let go of their intellectual dishonesty. Of course, I would rightly challenge us all to stand in the reason and evidence proven in this world, not arbitrarily adding without reason unproven claims devoid of evidence for some unproven otherworld. Can the scholars of religion move us with actual valid and reliable reason and evidence is not the question, as we already start and end with such reasoning and only wait for them to put up or shut up. So instead, the question is, will the scholars of religion show intellectual honesty do the same, start and end with actual reason and evidence that is valid and reliable in the real world, not resort back to the fallacy of faith, which is not proof of anything.
By Damien Marie AtHope