Be Careful of Pseudo-Knowledge Promoted by Intellectually Dishonest People

By -
The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy giving this warning about intellectual dishonesty:
1 Timothy 6:20 
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

This is the problem in the world of apologetics today. It's very easy to get mislead by a lot of science falsely so-called. This is all about pseudo-knowledge and dangerous it is to people. Here are a few of the many phrases that can be misused and abused by pseudo-intellectuals tend to use or love to use to spread their lies:
  • I'm sure... (insert half-truth/s)
  • Studies show that... (insert half-truth/s)
  • There is overwhelming evidence/no evidence... (insert half-truth/s)
  • Study history... (insert half-truth/s)
  • It wasn't until (insert time period) that the doctrine of (insert doctrine) was developed
  • Everybody knows that... (insert half-truth/s)

Which in turn, one can see how these pseudo-intellectuals tend to be contradictory or self-defeating:
  • Some people who say they're not sure are also the same people who declare that there are no moral absolutes. If there are no moral absolutes then how can one be sure?
  • It's highly possible that the studies that are used to back up pseudo-intellectual arguments are also based on faulty studies and not reliable ones. They would accuse the other party of being close-minded while they are close-minded themselves. They would only get anything to support their faulty data.
    • The anti-death penalty crowd is fond of using faulty data to prove that death penalty doesn't solve any crime from countries where law enforcement is almost non-existent.
    • Atheistic evolutionists would use various sources of fabricated data to "prove" that creationism is a "hoax" and evolution is a "fact".
  • The argument of overwhelming evidence or no evidence can also fall flat with the following:
    • A good example would be the theory of atheistic evolution. The so-called "overwhelming" evidence is based on the fossil record which defends creationism and Intelligent Design. 
    • Another good example would be that saying that atheists tend to say that there's no evidence for God therefore He doesn't exist. What they fail to see is that the evidence is actually overwhelming in nature with how organized nature is to be an accident. 
    • It's highly possible to make one look so credible through falsified data to "create" the "overwhelming evidence" and hide the actual data to make it look like that there's "no evidence".
  • When certain groups tell us to study history they may be asking us to study revisionism instead of the actual facts. There's a statement that "history is written by the victors". What's become so irritating to think about is that some history books tend to deny some facts. Some secular sources can be as dishonest as to declare some of these lies and how they are spread:
    • The different dinosaur periods which don't event exist or that the Earth is billions of years old when it isn't.
    • Some sources name Peter the first Pope even when that's historically impossible. I get told to read the encyclopedia as information to get Peter is the Pope. Hmmm... I could remember believing that Santa Claus was real because a children's book told me he was real. 
    • A lot of important facts like creationist scientists are being deleted. Some famous figures who are not atheists are labeled to be atheists to promote the atheist movement.
  • The argument of "it wasn't until this time period" is usually unsubstantiated. I could remember how I got into an argument with a member of the INC who said that it wasn't until the 14th century that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented. Where in the world did he get that infomation?
  • Arguing that "everybody knows" is an obvious exaggeration to outnumber someone. It's like when someone says "Everybody knows Santa Claus doesn't exist." but how many do believe that the fictitious character is real? This would require confirmation from everyone on Earth before this statement can even be validated. 

These pseudo-intellectuals can also call those who disagree with them as stupid and intellectually dishonest. It's safe to believe that these pseudo-intellectuals know that they are spreading a lie but they do it for their own convenience. Some of these pseudo-intellectuals are highly educated people like lawyers and doctors. Some claim they have the credentials which they don't even have because it was gotten through dishonest gain. Some may have a lot of knowledge but are willing to spread dishonest lies to make money out of gullible people or because they get paid by someone to make a lie look like it's real. Having a high standard of education is useless if you're intellectually dishonest.

Considering the amount of intellectual dishonestly these people hold then it shouldn't be surprising with how they spread their lies. There's a high chance that such people would resolve to Ad Hominem attacks, argument from silence, non sequitur, poisoning the well, special pleading and straw man arguments. If they can't win a fair fight then getting low and dirty has always been used to carry out their quest to spread intellectual dishonesty. They instead choose to concentrate on their opponent than what their opponent is saying. It's like a dishonest doctor who's silencing a non-doctor who is telling the plain truth about the former's lies. An example might be that the same dishonest doctor is telling people to inhale methamphetamine to heal themselves. He also says that the other person has no qualification to say it because the latter is not a doctor.

There's one established fact about the truth. A lie usually travels a mile or two before the truth will be revealed. Lies spread like wildfire because people lack discernment and knowledge. It's no wonder Hosea 4:6 warns that people are destroyed by a lack of knowledge. There are many scientific hoaxes today labeled as science. There are many revisionist lies today believed to be historical truth. Worse, these people can label anyone who disagrees with their lies guilty of exactly what they're doing. The fiery darts of the evil one are continuously fired every second. Who knows how many lies are presented as truth as this paragraph was being composed. After all, didn't Adolf Hitler also say this statement, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

But there's one comforting truth. The truth never changes into a lie even if the lie is more believed. Nobody can vote away the truth just because only a few believe it. A popular lie will always remain a popular lie even if almost everybody believes it. There will be a day of reckoning. Evil may prosper now but it will soon end in ruins later.

 See also: