Intellectual Integrity

Atheists operate under the full expectation that they represent the rational thought process in whatever they conclude. This has been demonstrated rowdily and raucously in the past few weeks, with the most visible forums being those devoted to the new book by Vox Day (apparently a pen name of Theodore Beale), entitled, the Irrational Atheist, also known as TIA, on Day’s forum.

Day’s book attacked the logical basis for several of the books currently available from the “New Atheists”, and that roused the ire of the atheist masses on several atheist websites. The resulting furor has given an opportunity to look into the actual thought processes of those who associate themselves with atheism and attempt to defend it. It turns out to be an ugly scene. Here’s why, in a capsule: lack of intellectual honesty and discipline. (One is tempted to include intellectual capacity, but that is not known for certain, being obscured by the heat of the discourse).

Atheists being the self-declared paragons of rationality, one might expect to see a tsunami of rationality surging forth from the atheist community. That is not what happened. A tsunami surged alright, but it contained nothing resembling measured, considered, propositional give and take. Instead what issued forth was a tidal wave of ridicule, name calling, and admitted ignorance by a class of opinion flingers that had not even read the book.

This approach is not new, and occurs commonly on “science blogs” that are actually atheists-venting-vitriol blogs. There is a group mentality on some of these blogs that approaches that of the self-induced, ever-rising rage within mobs. Why should this be, within the “paragons of rationality”? Rather than being anxious and willing to step up and rationally defend their positions, they appear to feel violated by the mere existence of either the book, or of the person, Vox Day. In fact, most are unwilling to read the book at all, certainly before excoriating Day for having written it.

Regardless of the style of writing, or the opinion of the author or his background, what should be presented, if one cherishes rational discourse, is a discussion of the pros and cons of his propositions. Admittedly Day is acerbic in his approach; this does not negate any validity which his propositions might contain. The huge majority of atheist responses were not only from ignorance, not having read the book, but encouraged others to be equally ignorant. This approach highlights the lack of rationality involved, and even more, it spotlights the religious aspect of atheism, when its dogma and dogmatic leaders are challenged.

So what should one expect of a rational response? How can one be certain of one’s own rational response?

The keywords are: intellectual discipline and intellectual integrity.


Are there standards concerning intellectual discipline and integrity? Linda Elder of the “Critical Thinking Community”, addresses this, with respect to instilling them as standards in students:

”What are these standards? They are not new. They are not controversial.
“They are not mystical or highfalutin. In fact, once made explicit, they are quite intuitive. They enable us to make a matter clear when others are expressing it in a confused, vague or muddled way. They enable us to be accurate and precise when we are facing the inaccurate, imprecise or distorted. They enable us to check for what is germane to the problem at hand when others are displaying a tendency to wander off into unconnected matters. They enable us to get beneath the surface of an issue or problem when there is some tendency to miss important complexities. They enable us to step outside one point of view into another when most are hopelessly trapped within a narrow perspective. They enable us to check for consistency when others are operating with contradictions and inconsistencies.

“Put most simply, I am referring to the intellectual standards of clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth and logicalness of thought. They are essential in all academic, professional and personal performances that require sound thinking”

Intellectual integrity involves the analytical examination of each proposition in order to assign it a truth value. Those propositional values that are determined to be true may then be used to develop further propositions, which – if properly assembled from true propositions – can also be considered true. A scrupulous guard against prejudice and a priori presuppositions must be maintained.

These standards obtain if a conversation is to be deemed “rational”. They apply –it should be obvious – to both sides of the conversation. For example, it makes no difference what the achievements of the person have been in the past, as to the validity of the arguments the person made. So whether the person has “produced science” in the past several decades is no measure of the validity of that person’s argument. And the inferred character of the arguer also has no bearing on the validity of that person’s argument. It is the argument itself, and only the argument that should be approached, or else the conversation has wandered away from the solid turf of rational debate and onto the quicksand of character assassination or other impolite fallacies.

Here are some things not involved in intellectual integrity, and which are used against it:

(a) Attacks on the person, rather than the proposition.
(b) Refusal to consider any idea outside current dogma.
(c) Bullying those who wish to entertain actual rational discourse.
(d) Ridicule of the propositions (including without knowing the specifics).
(e) Using rationalization to create propositions that appear to support a pre-selected conclusion.
(f) Use of a blind denial of any type that is not supported with evidence.

The inability to discuss any points rationally with most atheists is disconcerting, but only at a surface level. Atheists are deeply entrenched in their beliefs in a way that surpasses many religions. That entrenchment cuts off any and all interchange of ideas, and supplants that interchange with the unreliable and irrational explosions of emotional outburst.

When you visit atheist websites, be sure to maintain your own integrity amidst the sulfurous, abortive, accusational, emotionalism that passes for atheist rationality. You aren't likely to be repaid in kind, but you won't have sacrificed your own integrity to the mob.