I defined 'belief' and you conveniently seem to ignore that, sallying forth to battle.
While not aimed at me - I read this as ‘how dare you ignore my definition of belief while I ignore your definition of belief’
(stating character traits is defining). The interesting thing where two people provide differing definitions is that the definitions attempt to confine the conversation to different aspects (ie the different definitions), which inevitably limits critical thinking.
'Doubt' is the only intellectually rationally honest Perspective.
Don’t you mean ‘the acknowledgement of doubt is the only intellectually honest perspective”
Or with more context, one can honestly state ‘I believe #### to be true, even while I harbour some doubts relating to that belief’
Is there anything you find intellectually dishonest about a belief or perspective held in such a way?
The greater the ability for critical thought, the greater the immunity from catching 'beliefs'.
And vice versa.
While there is plenty of merit in such a viewpoint, it is also a flawed viewpoint (as you hold doubt to be the only intellectually honest perspective, I doubt my calling your quote flawed poses any issue. I dare say you agree that it's flawed):
- Our mind literally makes neural connects, whether we want it to or not. At the lowest level of what constitutes a belief, these neural connections are no different from beliefs. We can of course, choose to engage in training our mind to form healthy neural connections.
- A person can see beliefs as necessary to moving through life, even while they maintain an open mind to the flaws. From this perspective, a person who engages in superb criticial thought, can still engage beliefs to improve their life…even while acknowledging those beliefs are flawed, and even while exploring the permutations of those flaws..