Intellectual Virtue #1 - Joe Schmid on Intellectual Virtue

The Majesty of Reason (2020)

 

"Tribalism is the dogmatic and weaponized adherence to the principles and beliefs of a social, political, or ideological group." (7)

 

"Tribalism underpins so many of the problems plaguing humanity. The devaluation and systematic murder of religious, social, and racial groups in parts of the world is fueled by the dehumanization of those outside one's ideological tribe. Tribalism is no trivial matter; its pernicious effects are witnessed on scales ranging from interpersonal communication to systematic genocide." (7)

 

"There is no doubt that the ingrained shortcomings of human nature are partially responsible for this tribalism." (7)

 

"We have lost sight of the very purpose for which dialogue and discussion exist in the first place, the very treasure upon which we base our intellectual pursuits: truth." (8)

 

"Without a recognition that truth is our aim, we see interlocutors not as fellow explorers on a journey towards a common treasure, but as villains with whom we must compete to gain status, pride, and ego-gratification." (8)

 

"Rather than fundamentally alter human nature, then, as an antidote to this dire ideological situation, the solution is a mutual recognition that we are fellow explorers who can learn from one another and seek the beautiful treasure of truth together as an enterprise of curiosity, respect, and love. It is only through valuing and loving others, encouraging critical and reflective thought, and aiming ourselves toward truth that we can solve the polarizing problems afflicting humanity." (8)

 

"How do we, as explorers, as seekers, proceed on this journey? . . . The first step on our journey lays the foundation for the ensuing steps. It equips you with the intellectual virtues and conversational tactics necessary for critical thinking. . . . Without cultivating the dispositions of curiosity, humility, open-mindedness, a love for truth, and more, a proficiency in argumentation is groundless and without direction." (9)

 

"The foundation of critical thinking is virtue. Virtues are (i) stable traits or characteristics that (ii) one develops through acts, habits, and character formation with (iii) some intrinsically valuable telos (end, purpose, goal). A morally virtuous person consistently strives for the telos of moral perfection through continued action and habituation towards doing good and avoiding evil. An intellectually virtuous person consistently strives for truth and greater understanding through various habits of the mind – intellectual humility, intellectual perseverance, and so on." (11) (Emphasis in bold is mine.)

 

"Here is a brief survey of some of the most important intellectual virtues that will serve as the foundation for the rest of the book (and, hopefully, for the rest of your life)." (11)

 

Emphasis in bold is mine in the following quotes: 

 

"Being intellectually humble involves recognizing the limitations of your knowledge and abilities. . . . intellectual humility is the willingness to say 'I don't know,' . . . and 'I might be wrong' in the appropriate circumstances." (11)

 

"Intellectual curiosity refers to the flaming passion . . . one has for discovering truths . . ." (11)

 

". . . intellectual perseverance is a committed rejection of intellectual laziness. Those with intellectual perseverance see barriers, hardships, and obstacles in their intellectual life as challenges to be overcome and opportunities for growth. Instead of giving up their pursuit of truth when it gets tough, they dig even deeper into the issues . . ." (12)

 

"Developing intellectual responsibility is a matter of taking charge of your pursuit of truth. Intellectually responsible individuals try to minimize deferring their beliefs to the hands of authority figures; instead, they seek to equip themselves with justification, arguments, evidence, and reasons." (12)

 

"Being open-minded is not a matter of believing that every single alternative position is equally probable. On the contrary, it is the willingness to examine such alternative positions in order to critically evaluate their rational and evidential merit. Being open-minded is all about a willingness to consider alternative viewpoints and to recognize, where appropriate, that one's own position might be mistaken." (12)

 

"We are all susceptible to confirmation bias – the tendency to selectively attend to . . . evidence that support[s] . . . our pre-existing beliefs and downplay . . . evidence that contravene[s] them. But a genuine love – dare I say adoration – for truth can help combat confirmation bias. Don't make defending a position your primary aim in intellectual pursuits; instead, make discovering truth your foremost goal." (12-13)

 

Schmid goes on to give us tips for productive conversation. He writes,

 

"Intellectual virtues are, once again, the foundation of critical thinking. However, they provide little guidance on how to have productive, fruitful, truth-oriented conversations . . . Intellectual virtues are all about directing oneself . . . to the telos of truth. But conversations are a step beyond that, since they implicate others in the pursuit of truth. Intellectual virtues are about action; conversations are about interaction." (13)

 

He continues: 

 

"It stands to reason, then, that the intellectual virtues will be limited in their utility when it comes to conversations. For this reason, I've compiled a number of tips . . . useful in facilitating the productive exchange of ideas." (13)

 

I will briefly paraphrase the 22 tips given (note that when I give verbatim quotes I am not necessarily quoting the entire tip):

 

1) Don't judge people for being biased for their current views. Work to mitigate bias, but don't view it as a personal failing when bias is a universal feature of human nature.

 

2) Emphasize agreement over disagreement.

 

3) Recognize that you and your interlocutor are on the same team with the shared goal of getting closer to the truth.

 

Question: This is not always the case. If you suspect that a person is not a genuine truthseeker, what do you do then? Avoid conversation with them? In some cases that's impossible, such as when confronted by friends and family on issues. Folks who lack intellectual virtue are, by all appearances, not truthseekers. I suppose the only thing to do then is preach the good news of intellectual virtue. If that doesn't go anywhere then there's no point in conversation at that point.

 

4) Be prepared to learn from your interlocutor. Don't enter a conversation expecting only to show off your superior knowledge.

 

5) Say you don't know something when you don't know it.

 

I would add: It's okay to use language like: "I'm aware of X topic / idea / author / book / paper, but I still need to research it and think more about it." Or, "While such and such is not clear, these other things are clear, and we can deal with the unclear stuff later."

 

That way you don't let your ignorance just hang awkwardly in the air; you acknowledge it and acknowledge a path forward for how you can deal with that ignorance, and acknowledge the bits of knowledge you do have around the gaps. You can also refocus the conversation and say "I don't know X or such and such is not yet clear, but that's not relevant to the task at hand." 

 

6) "It's okay . . . to be certain on some positions, but it should be somewhat rare." (14)

 

I have wondered whether one could make sense of a certain view of certainty where you can be certain and yet still open to changing your mind. The default view is that if you are certain then that just means you are not open to having your mind changed. But on another view of certainty, to say I am certain of something is just to say that I currently cannot imagine being wrong about that thing. I'm willing to entertain arguments for an opposing view because maybe they will change my imagination.

 

This way you get to have it both ways: you can be both certain and open-minded. Example: I am certain that if you have two objects, and combine them with two more objects, then you will have four objects. I cannot imagine this not being the case. But if someone believes differently (say, a nominalist who believes that truthmaker maximalism is false and that there are no truthmakers for mathematical statements), then I'm willing to hear them out because they might change my imagination.

 

7) Create a respectful environment where truth and love take center stage.

 

8) Place yourself in the shoes of your interlocutor and humanize them, and try to take on their point of view to better understand why they believe as they do.

 

9) "Ditch the caricatures."(14) Don't let stereotypes affect the way you treat your interlocutor. Here I think of how Christians can be stereotyped as ignorant and irrational, and atheists can be stereotyped as selfish and evil.

 

Does this mean Christians have to reject Romans 1 when dialoguing with atheists? 

 

NRSVUE: "18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things God has made. So they are without excuse . . ."

 

How can Christians "ditch the caricature" when the Bible itself caricatures atheists? "God has made it plain to them"? "they are without excuse"? Also, it's straight up false that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth." If we take this meaning more generally, how much propaganda, lying, deception at the hands of businesses and governments has gone unpunished? There is a lot of suppression of truth out there, but I don't see one iota of God's wrath.

 

10) Avoid echo chambers and immerse yourself in varying viewpoints and ways of thinking.

 

11) Focus the conversation on exploring ideas rather than exposing the mistakes of your interlocutor's view. Your goal should be discovering what's true, not "defeating" an opponent.

 

12) Try not to score points or "win" a debate. Instead, aim for mutual understanding.

 

13) Modify your language to deescalate tension. I would add: avoid accusatory statements, which often begin with the word "you." Instead, use "I" statements and focus on what you believe and why. Try to avoid placing your interlocutor on the defensive or making them feel attacked.

 

14) Be virtuous and aim for truth and love.

 

15) "Try not to sew your worldview or position into the very fabric of your own being. Your value is not tied to the positions you take. If you can (at least temporarily) separate yourself from the position you take, arguments against the position in question won't be seen or felt as personal attacks." (16)

 

a) I can imagine keeping a distance to the odd philosophical argument or position. It's harder to imagine keeping a distance to your entire worldview. But that is exactly what's required – after all, your worldview could be mistaken, and to test your worldview you must step outside of it and subject it to critique as if an outsider.

 

However, there are some positions that cannot be separated from the self. The view that there is a self, for example, which is a (surprisingly) controversial view, cannot, as far as I can see, be separated from the self.

 

b) I would argue that your value is tied to the positions you take, which is exactly why so much is at stake in philosophy of religion discussions. Our value is at stake! If I am an immortal being who will live forever in a blissful heavenly realm, then my value is infinite. But if I am a mortal being who dies and stays dead forever, then my value is finite. [This is why there is so much at stake in metaethical discussions too! Some folks argue against value realism. –01 July 2025]

 

16) Be a good listener and be fully present and not distracted. "If the occasion is right, re-state the point made by your dialectical partner. This shows that you are genuinely listening to them, which de-escalates tribalism. Also be sure to ask, respectfully, 'Is this what you mean?'" (16)

 

17) Philosophy is best done slowly. I would add: it's okay to go over the same concepts, ideas, and arguments over and over again in philosophy. In philosophy ideas are worth revisiting time and time again. There's always something to add or correct.

 

18) Steelman, don't strawman. I would add: this is what it means to place yourself in your interlocutor's shoes and try to see things from their point of view. This is also known as charity, where you interpret your interlocutor's position in the best of lights. Defeating a strawman means nothing. It's only when a view, in its best form, is shown to be mistaken that you can rationally reject it.

 

19) Speaking of charity, be charitable! How extremely frustrating is it when someone construes your words to mean something horrible that you didn't mean? Don't do that.

 

20) Maintain civility and respect. If this cannot be done, then walk away from the conversation.

 

21) Do not psychologize your interlocutor. 'Psychologizing' refers to when you try to explain why someone believes what they do by psychoanalysis. This involves dismissing the reason and evidence given for their view.

 

Recently I saw an example of this mistake made by Lee Strobel, where in an interview he talked about how famous atheists had poor relationships with their fathers, suggesting that we can psychologize atheism away as a result of "daddy issues". This is a mistake because it ignores the very real arguments that atheists, and naturalists more broadly, have offered for atheism and naturalism, arguments that Lee Strobel certainly has not come close to defeating.

 

I think psychologizing is perfectly fine, and even necessary for explaining human behavior and belief. Where it becomes a "fallacy" is when the psychoanalysis is just straight up wrong. If an atheist is convinced that the problem of evil succeeds, then the correct psychoanalysis will involve the intellectual experience provided by an argument from evil.

 

Atheists make this mistake too: they will say that Christians believe what they do because of wishful thinking. That fails to account for the fact that at least some Christians believe Christianity is true because they read the New Testament and are convinced that what they are reading is true history, that Jesus really did die and raise from the dead, that Paul really was visited by God on the road to Damascus, and that the authors of the New Testament accurately recorded what happened, at least accurately enough to justify a general Christian belief that God exists, sent Jesus to die for our sins, and resurrected Jesus as a sign of the resurrection to come for those who place their faith in Jesus. [In fact, you could accuse atheists of wishful thinking – wishing that they would not be judged by God for their moral failings. -01 July 2025]

 

I would add: one of the worst mistakes you can make as an interlocutor is, sadly, one of the most common mistakes, known as 'mindreading' or 'gaslighting' (this applies to psychologizing too), which is when you assume you know someone's inner mental life better than they do, or you assert yourself as a greater authority of someone's feelings and beliefs than they are. It can be a form of gaslighting because it involves trying to make someone appear confused about their own mental states; it basically amounts to an accusation of self-deception or failure of self-understanding. It's similar to "putting words in someone's mouth".

 

Christians can make this mistake because of Romans 1, which suggests that non-believers either really believe there is a God, as creation makes it obvious that God exists such that there is no excuse for non-belief, and that non-believers are somehow deceiving themselves or failing to be honest about why they really reject God, or non-believers are just really stupid (somehow in a way that morally implicates them).

 

Again, we see how the Bible gets in the way of being intellectually virtuous. This verse in particular is problematic. It appears to commit the Christian to engage in the worst mistake you can make in informal reasoning where you assume to know your interlocutor better than they know themselves.

 

22) "Arguments are not weapons and are rarely knock-down. Recognize room for rational disagreement." (17)

 

I agree that 1) you should never use arguments as weapons to attack someone or bully them or insult them, and 2) that arguments are rarely so strong that they guarantee the truth of the conclusion, because the premises can almost always be challenged. But I'm not sure there is always room for rational disagreement, depending on our definition of 'rational.'

 

Let's say I become convinced that arguments from evil succeed in showing that it's incredibly unlikely that a perfect God exists. It would be very strange for me to admit both that 1) God very likely doesn't exist and 2) There is no mistake in believing in God. If God likely doesn't exist then of course there is a mistake in believing in God.

 

If I believed in God and then stopped believing because of arguments and evidence, then clearly I am saying to myself that there are good reasons to doubt God's existence such that it would be irrational for me to continue believing. The "for me" caveat is key. Maybe it's consistent to say that it would be irrational for me to believe in God given what I believe about arguments from evil, but I don't have to believe that it's irrational for other people to believe in God because their beliefs don't commit them to the same conclusions as mine do.

 

However, surely I believe that the reasons why I have the beliefs I do, and thus the commitments I do, are good reasons, reasons worth having. Good reasons are, perhaps among other things, true. If someone says "I believe in God because God is necessary to make sense of the origin of consciousness, the universe, and biological life", those are only good reasons to believe if it is in fact true that God is necessary to make sense of those things. If those claims turn out to be false, then they turn out to not be good reasons.

 

Whether someone is rational, on one interpretation, comes down to whether that person has actually good reasons, and thus true reasons, for why they believe as they do. If we believe philosophy allows us to discover truth, then we should be prepared to say that philosophy allows us to discover which reasons were good or bad all along, and thus which positions were reasonable or unreasonable all along. If I change my mind on God's existence, then I am admitting that the reasons for believing in God were not good even while I believed. Those reasons turned out to not be good after all, which is why I later changed my mind and lost belief in God. It just sounds to me like a straight contradiction to say both that there are no good reasons to believe in God and that belief in God is rational.

 

There is this sense in which I wasn't irrational for believing in God: When I believed in God, I wasn't believing out of wishful thinking (actually, I think that was a part of it, but not the whole story), but I was believing out of what makes sense and what I thought must be true. I thought that the idea of the world being a total accident didn't make sense and that therefore there had to be a creator. That is, in a sense, a reasonable view. I was believing on the basis of arguments, in an intellectually virtuous way, which made it more likely that I would be believing what's true or at least capable of uncovering and correcting my false beliefs.

 

I agree that there is room for rational disagreement in this sense, in the sense that you can't blame someone for believing as they do. More specifically, you can acknowledge problematic, intellectually vicious ways of believing (these are, in a sense, blameworthy) in contrast to reliable, intellectually virtuous (blameless) ways of believing. You can acknowledge that there are intellectually virtuous (blameless) people on opposing sides of a debate. But that doesn't mean one side isn't more reasonable at the end of the day. What we are trying to discover is exactly that: which side is the one with better reasons to believe. Just because you are blameless doesn't mean you are not ignorant or mistaken.

 

The problem is that 'irrational' is so often used as an insult. So for the sake of productive conversations, it's best to never accuse someone of being irrational, or to accuse someone's view as an irrational view. Instead it's best to focus on reasons: I believe such and such because... and "What reasons do you have for thinking that that must be true?"