Intellectual honesty or dishonesty?

During my time in Yeshiva I was consistently encouraged to think critically about Torah. I was told that we should never accept things at face value and to always challenge assumptions. This is something that is usually practiced within the walls of the Beit HaMedrash- argument after argument resound. Abuse is hurled at each other as diligent students trying to impress their study partners as to the correctness of their own reading and elaboration of the text.
There were never simple answers to a kasha on Rashi. The Rambam could always be rationalised, often with the help of Reb Chaim , Rav Isser Zalman or Rav Meir Simcha. In fact so important was this approach that numerous works have been authored in order to m’taretz these kashas. We are determined, that such giants among the Rishonim, as well as ahcaronim, could not have made a mistake, misread the gemara or even chas v’shalom haven got the whole idea wrong.
This I feel is the correct way of textual analysis. Looking at the text in a one-dimensional manner is not only immature and superficial, it is intellectually dishonest.
When I read a piece of Rambam, I must ask myself: “Surely the Rambam thought of this question, how would he have answered it?” Even though I may never in fact find the definitive answer to my question, never the less I owe it to the great man that he would be able to debunk my kasha (‘Refutation’).
Modern academics often write in such a manner when dealing with issues relating to Jewish law. They ‘disprove’ entire thesis of Rabbinic literature because of difficulties that they find in the texts. Marginalised opinions are considered the mainstream and extreme views are presented as conventional- this is obviously necessary in order to promote their own dissertations and theories. Unfortunately because many of the readers are also ignorant of the subject matter; opinion is taken for fact and the Rambam’s old archaic view of reality is thrown onto the tip of ancient superstitious folk-lore. These books often are ‘best-sellers’. This is not surprising, because they allow the layman to feel comfortable in his state of laity, not needing to question his own beliefs or values.

Rabbinic literature of late has suffered the same fate as its academic opponents. Darwinism is viewed in a light of condescension that only the actual ape from which we evolved could possibly buy into. Their refutations arise from inconsistent fossil records, evolutionary jumps and disputes amongst academics. It is possible, even probable, that many of the authors of such well worked critiques have never even read Darwin.
The world of science is not the only world that feels the brunt of attack from these one-dimensional critics. Questions relating to Talmudic and even Biblical accuracy or inaccuracy are brushed-off with little fuss. The authors of such theories are labelled apostates and heretics and therefore their opinions need not be taken seriously.

So in a nutshell we find ourselves in an era that lacks intellectual honesty, critical self-analysis and therefore a generation that lacks the search for truth. People on the right accuse the left of heresy, those on the left accuse the right of fanatical close-mindedness due to an outdated, and obviously wrong, belief system.

The unfortunate consequence of these two positions is lack of tolerance. The wise man is lauded for his ability to learn from everyone- not necessarily to buy into his life-style or belief system. Until we are prepared to listen and seek to understand before we refute and critique- the era of intellectual dishonesty, and its fruit of intolerance and extremist opinions, will flourish and continue.