What the heck is "dishonest" doubt anyway?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Okay, I'll admit it...

I'm a moron :duh:

I have read and heard the term "honest doubter" numerous times now and still don't know what it means.

Can someone please tell me how you can be a "dishonest doubter". :huh:

[Meh_Gerbil]

Okay, I'll admit it...

I'm a moron :duh:

I have read and heard the term "honest doubter" numerous times now and still don't know what it means.

Can someone please tell me how you can be a "dishonest doubter". :huh:

Several things come to mind:

1: Trolls. People who pretend they are interested in hearing your answers but in fact are just there to get a rise outta you. Example: I'm a dishonest doubter when I speak to evolutionists about the ToE.

2: Procrastinators: People who use doubt as a means of avoiding the responsibility that comes with acheiving an answer. They prefer the constant state of doubting to actually having to act on a conclusion.

3: Sophists: People who enjoy the act of questioning but have no real use for answers. They like the discussions and the banter but the 'means' has no 'ends' as a goal. The process is all that interests them.

[jpholding]

2: Procrastinators: People who use doubt as a means of avoiding the responsibility that comes with acheiving an answer. They prefer the constant state of doubting to actually having to act on a conclusion.


I gave DJ the benefit of the doubt for a bit, but it became clear that he was of this type.

It'll make for a nice toon in July.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It was very distracting everytime someone said "honest doubter".

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It was very distracting everytime someone said "honest doubter".

The problem is that everyone will usually claim to be an 'honest doubter', like 'Mad Gerbil', but in reality their statements of doubt are based on other presupositions like certain religious beliefs that would prevent them from accepting any alternatives except what they believe.

[Doubting John]

There are indeed dishonest doubters. Some of them don’t know that they are being dishonest, but they are. They are dishonest to themselves. Perhaps because of a horrible accident they just refuse to believe in God, even though they know deep down inside that it wasn’t God’s fault. The subconscious mind can indeed play tricks on us. It’s the same with irrational guilt. Some people really feel guilty for something they think they did, but there is no rational basis for feeling this way, and it’s due to their own emotions a lack of information.

Some others know they are being dishonest, but they profess doubt anyway. But this reason for professing doubt must benefit the one who professes that doubt in some way. Lacking any benefit in professing doubt would render such professions unnecessary and irrational. But where there is some benefit for doing so, then there will be dishonest doubters.

Os Guinness, in his book In Two Minds: The Dilemma of Doubt and How to Resolve It (IVP, 1976) discusses some reasons for doubt: doubt from ingratitude; doubt from a faulty view of God; doubt from weak (intellectual) foundations; doubt from a lack of commitment; doubt from lack of growth; doubt from unruly emotions; doubt from fearing to believe; doubt from insistent inquisitiveness; and doubt from impatience or giving up.

Of course, since Guinness is a Christian and was arguing on behalf of his faith, he doesn’t mention one other reason to doubt: doubt from lack of adequate reasons. And he fails to note that in the above list of reasons to doubt one could just as well insert the word “believing” in place of the word “doubt” in most every instance, from my perspective. [Instead of “doubt from ingratitude” it could read “believing from false gratitude,” and instead of “doubt from fearing to believe,” it could read “believing from fearing to doubt.”]

So it becomes clear to the educated thinker that how one perceives doubt is itself a world view consideration, depending on our perspective. From my perspective I could write the book a different way entirely—just noted.

How the Christian deals with doubters is troublesome to me. Like Guinness, doubt is explained away both intellectually and emotionally. That is, you either don’t know what you should know, or you have psychological problems. And why do Christians do that? Because many Christians think that the intellectual foundations for Christianity are superior to others, such that anyone who doubts their faith is lacking in knowledge or mentally deficient. It’s just troublesome for the Christian to think that God will condemn a doubter to hell (however conceived) if he honestly could find reasons to believe. That just seems unfair, they think, so they conclude doubters must be in rebellion against God, and/or mentally deficient

This is quite a Christian fortress build on sand that is hard to argue against. Every objection has an answer based upon the faith they wish to defend. I previously defended that faith and thought likewise, having read Guinness’ book when it first came out with agreement. But now I demur. It just isn’t so.

I titled my recent book: From Minister To Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind, simply because I knew there would be Christians who would reject the claim that I am a doubter. So I added the word “honest.” Because my doubt is indeed honest. I had written many articles for Christian magazines defending Christianity, which can be found and read. So I began my book by stressing that I was truly a believer—a passionate one. You can check this out yourselves by asking Dr. William Lane Craig what he thought of my Christian faith when I graduated under his mentoring at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1985 with a Th.M. in the “Philosophy of Religion.”

Since it seems clear that I was a believer at one time, the other option is to deny that I am a honest doubter right now. I’m in denial, one could be heard to say. But this Calvinistic response sounds exactly like those who deny that any truly gay person could ever go straight, and yet there are people who claim to have done just that. It seems as though what Christians believe takes precedence over the testimony of people, when that testimony contradicts what they believe. That’s a little bit strange when those same Christians will claim to believe the testimony of the early disciples to the resurrected Jesus, even though their testimony contradicts what we know about the regular ordered laws of nature.

I think that a better case can be made that there are more dishonest Christian believers in American society than there are dishonest doubters. Since there must be a benefit to claiming something that isn’t so, the question is, who stands to benefit the most by being dishonest? I was in Indianapolis, IN, in April and saw a blue Christian phone book that only advertises Christian businesses in it. The thrust of that phone book was that Christians should support other Christians with their business. So it would benefit businesses to advertise in that book, regardless of their Christian faith. If a similar book was put out by doubters, I know that anyone who advertised in that book would lose business, simply because most people in the heartlands of America profess faith in Christ, and Christians would boycott any business that professed doubt.

Gay people need to have courage to “come out of the closet” because they fear that doing so would cause them problems with the “moral Christian majority.” It’s much easier to come out a declare oneself a Christian, because that’s respectable in the heartland of America. Confessing Christ in our small town cultures isn’t what it used to be in the early few centuries. But doing so today actually has many social benefits, in my opinion. In Muslim cultures it would take courage to confess Christ, because in those cultures Christians are in the minority. And it would take a great deal of courage to deny Islam after having embraced it. There would be no social benefit in denying Islam in a Muslim culture. In fact, former Muslims who come to reject Islam might be killed, I’m told.

So, in small town cities across America it takes more courage to declare oneself a doubter or an atheist than a Christian believer, I think. And consequently, since the social benefits are clearly against minority thinking, then two things follow: 1) There are more dishonest professing Christians; and 2) Those who profess minority thinking such as doubt and atheism are more likely than not simply being honest, because doing so actually denies them various social benefits. I have personally experienced this with my business. After writing my book my business is hurting because of it. If I were truly dishonest I would turn around and profess faith so that my business in this small town might thrive again.

In fact, I think a better case can be made against the professions of most Christians than against the professions of doubters like me. Christians claim that I really don’t doubt. Let me make a better case against them by arguing that Christians really don't believe in God or in Christianity.


A Letter to the Christian:
You think you believe but you really don't. You see, your behavior itself tells on you. You don't live every waking hour of every day the way you would if you truly believed. I don't even have to know you, but you probably peek at pornography on the web--say it isn't so?--you don't give your money to Christian causes like you would if you truly believed. You don't pray enough, and you don't read the Bible like you should, or evangelize as you know you should, if you truly believed that unbelievers will be eternally punished for their unbelief. You probably have someone in your life that rubs you wrong—a relative?—that you simply cannot forgive, and you may even dislike someone to the point where you may even hate them. You have guilt running through your veins for all of this and yet you claim that you stand forgiven in the eyes of God—is that not a contradiction?

So don't tell me I really believe. I do not. It's you who are in denial. You simply are going through the motions because of the social benefit of people whom you respect who are your helpers through life. And you need some father godlike figure in the sky so you can feel secure and comforted, so you created this father figure in your mind. But maybe he just doesn't exist and deep down you know this.

You claim I believe. I claim I do not. So I make a case against your believing, for an effect. How does it feel when someone says you don't believe as you say you do? Well, you do that to me when you claim I believe even though I said I do not. Now, what about my case? Do you really believe or not? I think my case is much stronger than yours, and yet I'm willing to take your statements of faith at face value and grant them.
--End of letter.

Dr. James Sennett has argued against the idea that people who reject Christianity do so because they are either “ignorant,” “stupid” or “dishonest with the facts.” That is, he argues against the idea that a “fully rational rejection of Christianity is impossible.” [See his forthcoming book: This Much I Know: A Postmodern Apologetic]. Dr. Sennett calls this objection the Christian “Illusion of Rational Superiority." It's an illusion, he claims. [Although, as a Christian philosopher he argues it is an unnecessary illusion due to the fact that even though he has a reasonable faith, it is “not rationally compelling to all.”]

Sennett argues that the Christian cannot overlook “one simple but powerful fact: most of the truly brilliant, deepest thinking, most profoundly influential movers and shaker of the last two hundred years have not been Christians. Neither Albert Einstein nor Bertrand Russell nor Sigmund Freud nor Stephen Hawking nor Karl Marx professed Jesus as lord. And the list goes on. To suggest that these people failed to believe because of ignorance or some rational defect is ludicrous.” [Of course, the illusion runs both ways, Sennett claims. There is no rational superiority for unbelief, either. Atheist Thomas Nagel is quoted as saying he was made uneasy “by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.”]

Sennett informs us that “if there is one lesson that modern epistemology has taught us, it is that almost nothing is as rationally certain as “the illusion” claims Christianity to be. In other words, almost nothing is so obvious that one could never rationally reject it.” Furthermore, it seems possible that “one could rationally deny almost any claim, even if that claim is true.” There are plenty of philosophical reasons for Sennett’s argument, and many historical examples that he gives. Plenty of them. The fact is, many scholars have indeed examined the historical evidence for Christianity and they regard that evidence as flawed.

Doubt from the lack of adequate reasons? Yes indeed. That's my assessment of the case for Christianity, and I alone am responsible for that assessment. That's just what I think, and I have presented some good reasons for my thinking in my book.

I now have an additional reason for doubt. My wife was just diagnosed as having cancer. She's just 45 years old. Where is God now?

[Furor]

Dishonest doubters say things like "I'll suppose you'll have an argument for what I've just written. Save it. It'll fall on deaf ears. Silence is all you'll get from me. You, your arguments, and your God are not worth my time anymore."

Watch out for doubters who say things like that.

[Doubting John]

Furor:

For my response see the thread "Where is God in Infinite SPACE" page 5.

DJ

[Jedidiah]

Doubt from the lack of adequate reasons? Yes indeed. That's my assessment of the case for Christianity, and I alone am responsible for that assessment. That's just what I think, and I have presented some good reasons for my thinking in my book.You made some long, irrational posts, but I am afraid I found not one good reason for your thinking. You may claim such a thing, but express it clearly in a few words, instead of pointless rambling.

I now have an additional reason for doubt. My wife was just diagnosed as having cancer. She's just 45 years old. Where is God now?He is the same place He was when I lost a close friend to cancer at age 20. You can not be honest and blame God for your wife's cancer. Facing death, in yourself or in a loved one, is not easy. But blaming God is not only dishonest, but foolish. Using such pain as an excuse for doubt is pretty much the same thing.

Jedidiah

[Doubting John]

You know, you can call my posts irrational all you want. But you're reading them and they do have some effect on you, especially when a crisis takes place in your life.

There is little that makes my posts irrational. I might be wrong, of course, but it's not due to the lack of reasons. It would more than likely be due to faulty presuppositions, if I am wrong. And this would be true of you, if you are wrong too.

But calling them irrational and showing me they are irrational are two different things. Better that you merely say that they are wrong, rather than irrational. The larger your claim is, then the harder it is to defend. Defend it, then.

[shunyadragon]

Dishonest doubters say things like "I'll suppose you'll have an argument for what I've just written. Save it. It'll fall on deaf ears. Silence is all you'll get from me. You, your arguments, and your God are not worth my time anymore."

Watch out for doubters who say things like that.

This coin most definitely has two sides.

[shunyadragon]

Okay, I'll admit it...

I'm a moron :duh:

I have read and heard the term "honest doubter" numerous times now and still don't know what it means.

Can someone please tell me how you can be a "dishonest doubter". :huh:

I doubt your sincerity here, the trend in your posts is much, much stronger in terms of self-assertiveness, and relatively free from doubt muchless considering yourself a moron.

The fewer the presuppositions or non-negotiable beliefs a person has the more likely you could consider their doubt sincere. This makes Diosthenes search very trying indeed. It is definitely better views as a sliding scale.

[Furor]

This coin most definitely has two sides.
Most coins do, baby. :-*

[FirstSunday33ad]

I doubt your sincerity here, the trend in your posts is much, much stronger in terms of self-assertiveness, and relatively free from doubt muchless considering yourself a moron.

The fewer the presuppositions or non-negotiable beliefs a person has the more likely you could consider their doubt sincere. This makes Diosthenes search very trying indeed. It is definitely better views as a sliding scale.

So in other words, you doubt my question about doubt is doubtless true?]

No, I really didn't know how you could have "dishonest" doubt, either you doubted or you didn't, it seemed to me all doubt must by definition be "honest".

[shunyadragon]

Most coins do, baby. :-*

True, but most people do not want to look at both sides of the coin.

[shunyadragon]

So in other words, you doubt my question about doubt is doubtless true?

No, I really didn't know how you could have "dishonest" doubt, either you doubted or you didn't, it seemed to me all doubt must by definition be "honest".

I believe honest doubt to dishonest doubt is defintely a sliding scale. It mostly depends on the strength and nature of the presupositions of an individual that would determine the honesty of doubt.

[Furor]

True, but most people do not want to look at both sides of the coin.
Most people are lazy.

[shunyadragon]

Most people are lazy.

. . . or afraid, maybe proud, and possibly stubborn.

[Furor]

. . . or afraid, maybe proud, and possibly stubborn.
I think you've got the wrong forum, buddy

[shunyadragon]

I think you've got the wrong forum, buddy

Are you saying that the particapants of this forum are not human, and theyare not capable of acting in fear, pride and stubborness?

[Furor]

Are you saying that the particapants of this forum are not human, and theyare not capable of acting in fear, pride and stubborness?
I am saying that the participants of this forum have risen above such petty and childish attributes, and that any perception of these qualities in them is actually a result of shameful projection on the part of the observer.

[shunyadragon]

I am saying that the participants of this forum have risen above such petty and childish attributes, and that any perception of these qualities in them is actually a result of shameful projection on the part of the observer.

Which particapants of which forum? The particapants in the this and all forums come from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs, and I will assume they are still human. To believe that they have risen above being human is a rather naive and unrealistic expectation. Apparently you believe they have not risen above being lazy, and in some way still human.

[Furor]

Which particapants of which forum? The particapants in the this and all forums come from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs, and I will assume they are still human. To believe that they have risen above being human is a rather naive and unrealistic expectation.
I never claimed they have risen above being any such thing. Surely you aren't arguing that the sum total of man's identity can be found in his exhibition of fear, pride, and intractability?

Apparently you believe they have not risen above being lazy, and in some way still human.
At least I'm not the one rabbitting on about coins in a thread about dishonest doubt. http://67.18.37.16/556/71/emo/teach.gif

[shunyadragon]

I never claimed they have risen above being any such thing. Surely you aren't arguing that the sum total of man's identity can be found in his exhibition of fear, pride, and intractability?


At least I'm not the one rabbitting on about coins in a thread about dishonest doubt. http://67.18.37.16/556/71/emo/teach.gif

The coin trick is important, because one who honestly doubts must look at all sides objectively and, ah . . . would not calim to rise above human weaknesses.

Never argued any such thing. 'At least I'm not the one . . . is not much defense for the following post, which may well be interpreted as you saying you claimed to have risen above . . .

I am saying that the participants of this forum have risen above such petty and childish attributes, and that any perception of these qualities in them is actually a result of shameful projection on the part of the observer.

[Furor]

The coin trick is important, because one who honestly doubts must look at all sides objectively and, ah . . . would not calim to rise above human weaknesses.
If you can demonstrate why this isn't a non-sequitur, you will win one (1) Furor Medal redeemable for Credibility at many Reputable Internet Venues.

Never argued any such thing. 'At least I'm not the one . . . is not much defense for the following post, which may well be interpreted as you saying you claimed to have risen above . . .
The "following post" to which you cling contains what should be an extraordinarily implicit "no!" to your original question as to whether or not I was suggesting that the posters on this forum have risen above their own humanity. As the word "attributes," scholars agree, applies only to the multiple attributive components named (i.e. fear, pride, intractability) and not to the collective singular attribute that is "human," I am moved to wonder if you got off the train too early, too late, or not at all.