wearestardust
6th October 2009, 02:18 PM
Something that some theists seem to have difficulty with is basic honesty. Given that religious texts seem usually to say favourable things about honesty, and that in the Christian sacred texts Satan is frequently characterised as “the deceiver”, this is surprising. But it is, nonetheless, the case.
Here are a few tips for the theist about how to be honest.
Truth and honesty are not the same thing. Most people don’t think a lot about this because most people have relatively straightforward ideas about being deceived (and their dislike of the same). However, often people who are of moderate intelligence, who recognise the distinction between truthfulness and honesty, and who have some mission, make good use of the distinction. Politicians are great users of this distinction. So, as it happens, are religious folk. Indeed, dishonesty (among other shenanigans – which is a nice codeword for “abuse”) by religious leaders is a not uncommon reason for people on this forum starting on the road from faith to atheism.
Truth is (for normal people, not philosophers) generally construed as a property of statements – a statement is true if it accurately reflects the way the world is.
Honesty is a property of people which is a stricter requirement than mere truthfulness, that is the property of people who tend to tell the truth. People are honest if they present information to other people in a way that leaves them with a clear and accurate understanding of how the world is, as the presenter understands it. Indeed it is possible to be honest while unwittingly failing to tell the truth because of error in one’s beliefs.
It is quite possible to be dishonest while being truthful. Let’s consider an example that may shed light on the issue.
A recent episode of Q and A on the ABC featured, among other people, Fr Frank Brennan, a Catholic Priest SJ (ie he’s a Jesuit). The topic was secular society. He and the other ‘religious’ representative, Waleed Aly, were asked about their religion’s views on homosexuality. After some prevaricating mainly on Brennan’s part including trying to split hairs between the disposition to and practice of homosexuality (about which the Catholic church has, formally, different teachings), the question was put to them directly: does or does not your religion condemn the practice of homosexuality?
Brennan’s answer was: this is a matter for the individuals concerned, and for them to work out with their individual religious advisers.
Hey, whoa there! The Catholic Church is opposed to homosexuality. Did Brennan tell a lie? No he didn’t. Here’s why. It is true that the Catholic Church teaches the “primacy of conscience” – that individual decisions are the final arbiter of what is right or wrong.
However, what Brennan didn’t say was that the Catholic church teaches that while decisions for the individual are up to the individual (“subjective” right or wrong), all other things being equal, homosexuality is wrong (“objective” right or wrong).
So Brennan told the truth but at the same time avoided giving the viewer and accurate understanding of the church’s view. He tried to avoid giving an accurate view of the church’s position first by only trying only to talk about teaching on the disposition to homosexuality (ie the disposition is not a sin), and then by telling only half the story about the church’s teaching on practice.
Indeed, the understanding that the uninformed viewer would reach is quite the opposite of what Brennan’s church would teach. So here's the question for reflection: do you think that is honest? The Pope has recently spoken out to say that homosexuality is a greater threat to humanity than destruction of the environment. Contemptible and grotesque as I find that statement to be, at least is straightforward and complete.
As an aside, to complete this scenario, the Catholic church’s teaching on primacy of conscience goes like this:
1. It is up to the individual conscience to decide what is right or wrong for the individual.
2. The conscience is only a reliable guide to right and wrong if it is informed.
3. If the conscience is informed then it will agree with the church.
It’s no coincidence that “Jesuitical” has come to mean argumentation designed to get the answer desired, not the truthful and honest answer.
Aly’s response, on the other hand, was that Islam has no central teaching authority. Therefore it is not possible to say what Islam teaches. Hopefully, armed with the Brennan example and some understanding of how religions operate, it should be possible to see without much further discussion how this may be truthful, while smelling of not being straighforward. Certainly, while all religions have differing views on details, it can reasonably be said that there are consensus views on certain issues. For christianity there is a consensus view that homosexuality is wrong; the question put Aly was whether or not this is true of Islam. We don’t know; he ducked the question.
Indeed Aly’s answer leads us to another approach to non-clarity. I say his answer “may” be truthful. Actually, I'm not so sure it squares with the facts. Can a belief be Islam without, for example, certain views on Allah and his Prophet? I don’t think so. But to obsfucate and avoid the question, Aly made this statement about absolute diversity of muslim views that was not only misleading, but actually untrue it seems to me.
Similarly in the program and in his book “People Like Us”, Aly asserts that a key difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam has no hierarchies. If you watched the program you will have noticed that Aly made a qualification to this statement, sotto voce and almost into his armpit, that this is at least true for the Sunni faith. A similar quiet excision of the Shi’a from Islam for the sake of convenience of argument is performed in his book. This is another kind of trick which is very common in religion generally and on the part of theists posting on this forum in particular: to make points using especially created definitions or assertions that either don’t stack up against normal usage, or don’t stack up at all against the general situation they are trying to describe.
Anyway, my point is not to pick up and debate specific instances of dishonesty in recent public discourse. It’s to put out a challenge to theists: when you post, think about what you are posting, and whether you are using special meanings or definitions, or leaving out key facts, to make your points. In short: picking and choosing facts is dishonest. That’s it.
Here are a few tips for the theist about how to be honest.
Truth and honesty are not the same thing. Most people don’t think a lot about this because most people have relatively straightforward ideas about being deceived (and their dislike of the same). However, often people who are of moderate intelligence, who recognise the distinction between truthfulness and honesty, and who have some mission, make good use of the distinction. Politicians are great users of this distinction. So, as it happens, are religious folk. Indeed, dishonesty (among other shenanigans – which is a nice codeword for “abuse”) by religious leaders is a not uncommon reason for people on this forum starting on the road from faith to atheism.
Truth is (for normal people, not philosophers) generally construed as a property of statements – a statement is true if it accurately reflects the way the world is.
Honesty is a property of people which is a stricter requirement than mere truthfulness, that is the property of people who tend to tell the truth. People are honest if they present information to other people in a way that leaves them with a clear and accurate understanding of how the world is, as the presenter understands it. Indeed it is possible to be honest while unwittingly failing to tell the truth because of error in one’s beliefs.
It is quite possible to be dishonest while being truthful. Let’s consider an example that may shed light on the issue.
A recent episode of Q and A on the ABC featured, among other people, Fr Frank Brennan, a Catholic Priest SJ (ie he’s a Jesuit). The topic was secular society. He and the other ‘religious’ representative, Waleed Aly, were asked about their religion’s views on homosexuality. After some prevaricating mainly on Brennan’s part including trying to split hairs between the disposition to and practice of homosexuality (about which the Catholic church has, formally, different teachings), the question was put to them directly: does or does not your religion condemn the practice of homosexuality?
Brennan’s answer was: this is a matter for the individuals concerned, and for them to work out with their individual religious advisers.
Hey, whoa there! The Catholic Church is opposed to homosexuality. Did Brennan tell a lie? No he didn’t. Here’s why. It is true that the Catholic Church teaches the “primacy of conscience” – that individual decisions are the final arbiter of what is right or wrong.
However, what Brennan didn’t say was that the Catholic church teaches that while decisions for the individual are up to the individual (“subjective” right or wrong), all other things being equal, homosexuality is wrong (“objective” right or wrong).
So Brennan told the truth but at the same time avoided giving the viewer and accurate understanding of the church’s view. He tried to avoid giving an accurate view of the church’s position first by only trying only to talk about teaching on the disposition to homosexuality (ie the disposition is not a sin), and then by telling only half the story about the church’s teaching on practice.
Indeed, the understanding that the uninformed viewer would reach is quite the opposite of what Brennan’s church would teach. So here's the question for reflection: do you think that is honest? The Pope has recently spoken out to say that homosexuality is a greater threat to humanity than destruction of the environment. Contemptible and grotesque as I find that statement to be, at least is straightforward and complete.
As an aside, to complete this scenario, the Catholic church’s teaching on primacy of conscience goes like this:
1. It is up to the individual conscience to decide what is right or wrong for the individual.
2. The conscience is only a reliable guide to right and wrong if it is informed.
3. If the conscience is informed then it will agree with the church.
It’s no coincidence that “Jesuitical” has come to mean argumentation designed to get the answer desired, not the truthful and honest answer.
Aly’s response, on the other hand, was that Islam has no central teaching authority. Therefore it is not possible to say what Islam teaches. Hopefully, armed with the Brennan example and some understanding of how religions operate, it should be possible to see without much further discussion how this may be truthful, while smelling of not being straighforward. Certainly, while all religions have differing views on details, it can reasonably be said that there are consensus views on certain issues. For christianity there is a consensus view that homosexuality is wrong; the question put Aly was whether or not this is true of Islam. We don’t know; he ducked the question.
Indeed Aly’s answer leads us to another approach to non-clarity. I say his answer “may” be truthful. Actually, I'm not so sure it squares with the facts. Can a belief be Islam without, for example, certain views on Allah and his Prophet? I don’t think so. But to obsfucate and avoid the question, Aly made this statement about absolute diversity of muslim views that was not only misleading, but actually untrue it seems to me.
Similarly in the program and in his book “People Like Us”, Aly asserts that a key difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam has no hierarchies. If you watched the program you will have noticed that Aly made a qualification to this statement, sotto voce and almost into his armpit, that this is at least true for the Sunni faith. A similar quiet excision of the Shi’a from Islam for the sake of convenience of argument is performed in his book. This is another kind of trick which is very common in religion generally and on the part of theists posting on this forum in particular: to make points using especially created definitions or assertions that either don’t stack up against normal usage, or don’t stack up at all against the general situation they are trying to describe.
Anyway, my point is not to pick up and debate specific instances of dishonesty in recent public discourse. It’s to put out a challenge to theists: when you post, think about what you are posting, and whether you are using special meanings or definitions, or leaving out key facts, to make your points. In short: picking and choosing facts is dishonest. That’s it.