Intellectual Objectivity

[TruthSeeker24]

I've been thinking a lot lately about today's modern concept of thinking and proper debating. I like to call it "Intellectual Objectivity," as I believe that this term properly defines the way in which we generally discuss issues. On one of the spectrum, it seems like a great way to discuss things, but on the other hand, I can't help but feel that it destroys faith and defines 2 Nephi 28:7-9 which reads:

7 Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: ^a, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

8 And there shall also be many which shall say: ^a, drink, and be ^b; nevertheless, fear God—he will ^c in committing a little ^d; yea, ^e a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a ^f for thy neighbor; there is ^g harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, ^a and vain and ^{b c}, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

Christ taught that we should look for witnesses to the truth and have the Spirit to discern a righteous testimony. But today, for every statement made, there's a necessity to find out the context surrounding the statement, the witnesses who heard the statement, the viewpoint of the individual who personally wrote the statement, ect. ect. I don't know, I guess I just kinda feel like we need to start finding the answers to things through righteous living, and striving to obtain the Spirit of God, as opposed to being filled with the mind-set of "Intellectual Objectivity."

Any thoughts on this?

[selek1]

But today, for every statement made, there's a necessity to find out the context surrounding the statement, the witnesses who heard the statement, the viewpoint of the individual who personally wrote the statement, ect. ect. I don't know, I guess I just kinda feel like we need to start finding the answers to things through righteous living, and striving to obtain the Spirit of God, as opposed to being filled with the mind-set of "Intellectual Objectivity."

Any thoughts on this?

I think the problem here is two-fold: first, you're creating a false-dichotomy, and second, you're swallowing some of the "argumentative smugglings" of those who are not arguing in good faith.

These two pit-falls are the main reasons the Brethren counsel us against contention and argument qua argument,

First:

The idea that we must limit ourselves only to evidences which support our faith a/o only spiritual testimonies and must shun factual evidence and context is a false choice: it's not an either/or proposition. (And despite the claims of disingenuous critics, has never been taught in the Church).

We are commanded to understand the things of both Heaven and this Earth. And that means understanding the intent of those whom we study instead of just memorizing their words. We must understand what they were trying to communicate, not just assimilate words on paper.

Second:

I think you're letting our critics and the Adversary define the terms of the debate in your own mind.

"Critical" at it's root, means "unbiased" or "objective". It means taking an honest look at not only the subject at hand, but how your assumptions might affect your interpretation. At its heart, this sort of thinking is a good thing, because it leads us to understand the subject- and ourselves- far more deeply and clearly than we might otherwise.

Far too often, however, "critical" is a code-word for "cynical" or "militantly disbelieving"- ElQuanteloko's posts are excellent examples of this tendency, and should be avoided lest you get any of it on you.

Rather than an "unbiased" or "objective" assessment of the subject matter, it is simply the polar opposite of unquestioning-belief. It is stubborn, willful, unyielding dis-belief.

Has anyone here ever heard "Well, you'll have to prove it to me!" used as anything other than a statement of stubborn defiance?

In the same vein, "objective", "rational", "scientific" and "reasoned" are most often used as code-words for "materialistic atheism".

Godwin's Law posits that the longer a thread runs, the greater the likelihood of a Nazi reference. The corollary is that such reference will inevitably be a personal attack made by someone who's run out of arguments.

By the same token, the longer a thread on religious belief runs, the greater the likelihood one of the buzzwords above will be thrown out, and it will almost inevitably be an attack by someone sneering at the believers.

Just as a Godwin's Law violation (or technically, a fulfillment ) means that the poster has run out of sound arguments,the scatter spray of words such as "objective", "rational", "scientific" or "reasoned" are a metaphorical white flag signalling that the poster is out of ammunition.

When a militant athiest claims that believers are "biased", "irrational", "dogmatic", or 'unreasoning", most often what he really means is "I can't convert you to my dogma because you're a poopy-head".

He has abandoned the true meaning of those perfectly acceptable words (and standards) and is now using them as a bludgeon.

Having subverted the meaning of "critical" to advance a polemical cause, they will happily submit these other terms to fulfill their need.

Don;t take that to mean, however, that we as believers cannot be believers are "biased", "irrational", "dogmatic", or 'unreasoning".

We can- particularly if we allow our critics to define the terms of the debate to their advantage.

Ultimately, intellectual honesty is a two-way street.

As children of the Most High God, we are called and commissioned to seek to understand the deepest meanings of both natural and eternal laws- but we must always be honest with ourselves as we do so.

We must be critical in our thinking, objective in our analysis, compassionate in our understanding, and righteous in our judgements.

Only then can we know the truth of all things "as they really are" instead of as we- or our critics- "might wish them to be".

These standards do not preclude finding answers through righteous living, and striving to obtain the Spirit of God. In fact, they are part and parcel to them.

[frankenstein]

Christ taught that we should look for witnesses to the truth and have the Spirit to discern a righteous testimony. But today, for every statement made, there's a necessity to find out the context surrounding the statement, the witnesses who heard the statement, the viewpoint of the individual who personally wrote the statement, ect. ect. I don't know, I guess I just kinda feel like we need to start finding the answers to things through righteous living, and striving to obtain the Spirit of God, as opposed to being filled with the mind-set of "Intellectual Objectivity."

Any thoughts on this?

It is only through the Spirit that you can discern truth.

[frankenstein]

When a militant athiest claims that believers are "biased", "irrational", "dogmatic", or 'unreasoning", most often what he really means is "I can't convert you to my dogma because you're a poopy-head".

and when someone uses the term liberal, militant, activist or some other inflammatory charge term, it means most often that person using those terms must first poison the wheel to make up for a presentation that is lacking.

[KevinG]

I don't think it is nice to objectify intellectuals or women.

[mfbukowski]

I've been thinking a lot lately about today's modern concept of thinking and proper debating. I like to call it "Intellectual Objectivity," as I believe that this term properly defines the way in which we generally discuss issues. On one of the spectrum, it seems like a great way to discuss things, but on the other hand, I can't help but feel that it destroys faith and defines 2 Nephi 28:7-9 which reads:

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

Eat, drink, and be ^bmerry; nevertheless, fear God—he will ^cjustify in committing a little ^dsin; yea, ^elie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a ^fpit for thy neighbor; there is ^gno harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

false and vain and ^bfoolish ^cdoctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

Christ taught that we should look for witnesses to the truth and have the Spirit to discern a righteous testimony. But today, for every statement made, there's a necessity to find out the context surrounding the statement, the witnesses who heard the statement, the viewpoint of the individual who personally wrote the statement, ect. ect. I don't know, I guess I just kinda feel like we need to start finding the answers to things through righteous living, and striving to obtain the Spirit of God, as opposed to being filled with the mind-set of "Intellectual Objectivity."

Any thoughts on this?

I agree.

There is no such thing as intellectual objectivity anyway- we all have distinctive points of view forged over out lifetimes.

I know you are new here- don't let all the debates get to you. For most of us, they are about as serious as a video game- a form of entertainment kind of like an intellectual boxing match.

But they are also good for learning the best arguments to defeat the church's critics. Just don't take them seriously- your testimony is the main thing, all the rest is just bovine leftovers.

[The Nehor]

Objectivity is an illusion. To some degree we can get limited amounts of it but only God can truly be objective.

Let us say I am someone who hears about Mormonism and decides to investigate. I've already lost my objectivity. I'm interested. As limited beings we can't learn everything and I'm choosing to study this with time I could have used to instead study Hinduism or Keynsian economics or Liverpool bus tables or medieval leechcraft. So my interest in the topic is already coloring my perceptions. Then I start to read up on Mormonism and an entire life-times worth of prejudices, insights, thoughts, beliefs, and conclusions all rear up when I try to examine it.

Even if we could be objective why would we want to be? I could conclude that Jesus rose from the dead and that blade of grass #397 in my front lawn grew an eighth of an inch since I last checked. If I'm truly objective these are both just facts. Only emotion, self-interest, desire, love, and all kinds of non-objective things make the former more important then the latter.

[HeatherAnn]

I've been thinking a lot lately about today's modern concept of thinking and proper debating. I like to call it "Intellectual Objectivity," as I believe that this term properly defines the way in which we generally discuss issues. On one of the spectrum, it seems like a great way to discuss things, but on the other hand, I can't help but feel that it destroys faith and defines 2 Nephi 28:7-9 which reads:

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

Eat, drink, and be ^bmerry; nevertheless, fear God—he will ^cjustify in committing a little ^dsin; yea, ^elie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a ^fpit for thy neighbor; there is ^gno harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

false and vain and ^bfoolish ^cdoctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

Christ taught that we should look for witnesses to the truth and have the Spirit to discern a righteous testimony. But today, for every statement made, there's a necessity to find out the context surrounding the statement, the witnesses who heard the statement, the viewpoint of the individual who personally wrote the statement, ect. ect. I don't know, I guess I just kinda feel like we need to start finding the answers to things through righteous living, and striving to obtain the Spirit of God, as opposed to being filled with the mind-set of "Intellectual Objectivity."

Any thoughts on this?

Moderation in all things, including intellecualizing & interpretting spiritual feelings.

Spiritual feelings can guide us about the future, but most often, I think they are bearing testimony that "God is LOVE."

If we get all carried away, criticizing concepts (or others) we tend to lack passion for GoOD.

If we start praying about which type of bread to buy at the store, we're misinterpretting the spirit to be a fortune teller, instead of testimony that God is love & that the "kingdom of God is within" us. (Luke 17:21)

Also, we can't sit meditating all day... living must be done, which tends to focus mostly on "finite things." Yet, God/Love/Spirituality is beyond what our minds can comprehend... more feeling, SPIRIT.

"To expect man to corner the infinite with his finite mind is like asking a dog to understand Einstein's equation with his nose." -(Author Unknown)