Mike has an excellent list of 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty up on his blog today. Everyone who regularly engages in internet-based discussions should give the list a perusal, and especially make sure that they are themselves following the guidelines. Actually, “guidelines” is too weak a word. And perhaps “laws” is too strong. Instructions? Ground rules? CODES?

Anyway, the point is that you really need to follow this list and make sure that you recognize when people you are talking to are or are not following them. The bulk of my internet discussions hinge upon my attempting to point out logical fallacies in the thinking of others. Not weak arguments, not rebutting otherwise good arguments with uncompelling evidence, but thinking that is flawed in a very rudimentary way. The inability to reason correctly causes a whole other host of problems to crop up, many of which are identified on Mike’s list.

Items 2 through 5 are especially good. If you are not able to be reasonable in the assessment of alternative points of view, then you have no business engaging in these sorts of discussions. Likewise if you are unable to accurately assess the strength of your own view, the same holds true. Being able to walk a mile in the another person’s shoes goes a lot further than a mile in making you a reasonable and engaging thinker. And being humble and willing redress your own thinking could be said to go even further.

Tom Gilson of Thinking Christian has posted a review of Michael Novak’s new book No One Sees God.

The book seems to be a call to both atheists and believers to put aside the polemics and try to find common ground; to remember that we are all human and all share the trait of not being able to “see God.” It would be nice if such collaboration was likely, however I forsee many falling back on the old question begging standpoint: “Why should I deign to comport with someone who is wrong?”

Hopefully that’s just the cynic in me.