Closed mindedness

[surftheiop]

In general ive heard many people say that they dont like religon/religous (especially christians) people because they are "closeminded" . I always sort of went along with their thoughts but then i wondered about atheists. Aren't they just as closeminded or even more closeminded than a Christian? An atheist only one way to be atheist- to believe there is no god, while there are many Christian denominations and most Christians agree that people from (m)any of these denominations will be saved.
Im not saying atheists or religous are more or less closeminded but why is it that the religous are often portrayed as being closedminded ?

[HLMencken]

Which is more "open-minded" by your definition above:

(1) Those that believe in all-powerful white unicorns who created and control the universe

(2) Those who don't subscribe to this theory

If you are using "counting" to judge open-mindedness. Then group 1 believes 1 possible way for universe to have come about, while group 2 is still open to an infinite number of possibilities.

[surftheiop]

(1) In your example is the less open minded

But in reality in comparison to atheism
(1) White Unicorns Rule universe
(2) White Unicorns dont rule universe
Both are equally close minded arent they ?

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) In your example is the less open minded

But in reality in comparison to atheism
(1) White Unicorns Rule universe
(2) White Unicorns dont rule universe
Both are equally close minded arent they ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rephrase your scenario:

(1) White unicorns rule the universe
(2) We have no direct evidence that white unicorns rule the universe, so I cannot say such a thing for sure

[bunny]

I think it is because you cant logically criticise most of a religious perspective - not because it's right (although I believe there is a correct religion) but because it is irrational. It seems to me that atheists and agnostics try to restrict their worldview to what can be rationally defended. I think a lot of the insults from either side come from not realising that there is a fundamental disagreement on how we should form a worldview.

As a theist I say "Use rationality where you can but there are situations where you cant - here you have to fall back on irrational reasons for beliefs."

As an atheist I used to say "Use rationality where you can - if you can find no rational argument to defend one of your beliefs, do your best to expunge it from your worldview."

If I was intolerant I could adopt either of these positions and call the other close-minded.

[surftheiop]

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(1) Belief in unicorns ruling universe
(2) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of Universe ruling uncicorns.
The doctrine that there is no Universe ruling unicorn(s).

Both seem pretty close minded to me

[flatline]

I think most atheists would be open to the idea of a God if there was any reasonable evidence. I have yet to see any.

[DougShrapnel]

Hey surf, you are having 2 distinct semenatic arguement and zero substantive arguments. The misuse of term athiest actually stems from the dictionary. The definition that is given is usually one describing HARD or STRONG atheism. Usually you can see the bias in a dictionary with the sentence they use to help define the word. For instance, There are no atheists in foxholes.

The 2nd arguement you are having is about close minded, Do you mean skeptical? If so, clearly the atheist is more skeptical. If you mean open to new ideas, you can't tell anything.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(1) Belief in unicorns ruling universe
(2) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of Universe ruling uncicorns.
The doctrine that there is no Universe ruling unicorn(s).

Both seem pretty close minded to me

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you ask most non-theists if they would change their mind if presented with even indirect evidence that there is a god/creator/intelligent designer, whether they would consider that evidence the answer would be yes.

If you ask a theist to consider the existing evidence that the things they attribute to god are in fact explainable by natural processes they engage in faulty probability theory, logical fallacies etc, and if pinned down with hard evidence retreat to "Of course, God created it so it would seem that way, and you cant prove he didnt".

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

(1) Belief in unicorns ruling universe
(2) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of Universe ruling uncicorns.
The doctrine that there is no Universe ruling unicorn(s).

Both seem pretty close minded to me

[/ QUOTE ]

Where you are going wrong is by assuming both propositions should be given equal weight. Hence, your analogy fails miserably.

1. Belief an elephant could fit inside my house.

2. Disbelief or denial that I will wake up tomorrow to find an elephant inside my house.

According to you, belief in #2 is being closed minded, which of course ridiculous.

[MidGe]

The question asked can be answered in another way.

The nenial of concept comes after its generation which comes after an emptiness.

blank space or emptiness = open mindedness
belief in a god concept = close mindedness
eliminating the belief in a concept = back to open mindedness

Note that I am saying eliminating or eradicating the belief, which is not the same as believing the opposite of the original belief.

To start there is a total unconcern with god, since the concept does not yet exist.

Edited:

It seems to me that atheism is there only to point out to theists the way in which they are close minded. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[surftheiop]

"If you mean open to new ideas, you can't tell anything."

Thats point im trying to get across - why are the religous sterotyped as being closeminded.

[surftheiop]

The thing is there isnt any scientific evidence of god so therefore they are not open minded to believing in god.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is there isnt any scientific evidence of god so therefore they are not open minded to believing in god.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not quite right. They don't belive in god because there isn't any reason to. Its being skeptical rather than being credulous.

I would have thought that close-minded means being unopen to reason.

[edit: being closed or open-minded is independent of believing in god]

chez

[hyde]

[ QUOTE ]
but why is it that the religous are often portrayed as being closedminded ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it may be the stridency with which the religious often espouse their view.
Add the flaws of religious instiutions to which the religious must profess faith to the mix and their position becomes threatened.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have thought that close-minded means being unopen to reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Closed-minded is also used as being unopen to appeals of emotion. People reach a way of feeling about a topic and changing their mind would mean destruction of their worldview, admitting to themselves, never mind others, that they were w-w-wronggg.

Endless examples in family situations and workplace 'I've been done wrong' viewpoints where no appeal, reason or emotional can break through.

Religion is a psychological position ( not a totally negative one) people arrive at down various roads. Like other emotional attachments, like prefering dogs to cats, it doesn't depend on rationality. No amount of logical argument can convince a doglover that cats are just as deserving. They don't like cats !!

Non-theists/deists, for the most part, arrive at their positions from various logical or semi-logical routes, not all of them very valid. You can change their worldview 3 times before breakfast by laying out some evidence...

It's steadystate universe. "uh, seems right."
Oh, it doesn't have black holes. "nope, seems not."
Looks like there could be several universes. "Yeah, it sorta does, doesn't it."

You can't do that with a religious viewpoint, because evidence isn't 100% they don't have to say "looks like it" about anything that goes counter to their basic worldview ( they may tinker with the trimmings).

It's That difference, and not the hardnosedness of the attack and counterattack that underlies the 'closed-minded' label that some religious views receive. A person with a, let's call it, "zen-based" religious viewpoint would rarely be looked at as closed-minded.


[ QUOTE ]
[edit: being closed or open-minded is independent of believing in god]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but only in that broad statement way. Certain routes to belief and certain beliefs demand closedmindedness. So, even if a non-theist/deist is by nature quite closeminded, it's not a feature of the end position itself.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats point im trying to get across - why are the religous sterotyped as being closeminded.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually the question you asked, or at least implied, was why aren't people that make the positive claim there is NO god considered close minded.

There are many reasons. Probably a good one is that the bread of atheist you are taking about rarely exists. Another reason is that there just isn't any new information about God. The position is normally taken in an extreme form of skepticism and not close mindedness. And lastly a Strong athiest doesn't like take his close mindedness outside of the belief in gods and the like.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is a psychological position ( not a totally negative one) people arrive at down various roads. Like other emotional attachments, like prefering dogs to cats, it doesn't depend on rationality. No amount of logical argument can convince a doglover that cats are just as deserving. They don't like cats !!

[/ QUOTE ]
I prefer a big dog to a cat and a cat to a small dog but I struggle to see in what way that makes me closed-minded. Its just a statement of fact about what I have discovered to be my personal preference.

I went on holiday to Amsterdam with friend some years ago, one of which had a new partner. She refused to try Indonesian food (which is one of the local cuisines) because 'she might not like coconut'. Is that being closed-minded or just being very unadventurous?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[edit: being closed or open-minded is independent of believing in god]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, but only in that broad statement way. Certain routes to belief and certain beliefs demand closedmindedness. So, even if a non-theist/deist is by nature quite closeminded, it's not a feature of the end position itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that but its not quite what I meant. Can we use one to predict the other. Politics is where I see the most closedmindedness. Can we make a better prediction of whether someone is religous by discussing a non-religous political issue with them?

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer a big dog to a cat and a cat to a small dog but I struggle to see in what way that makes me closed-minded. Its just a statement of fact about what I have discovered to be my personal preference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I grabbed the first analogy that went by me, not necessarily a good one, but you did seem to capture the flavour of it. Your ‘personal preference’ is not likely open to rational argument by me. You’ll have reasons for having them but not logical ones necessarily. The ‘leap of faith’ required for the initial premise in a religious belief is also not open to rational challenge.

The closed-mindedness you’d exhibit if I tried to convince you in some logical way that you should prefer cats is closed-mindedness … not receptive to alternative ideas on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we use one to predict the other. Politics is where I see the most closedmindedness. Can we make a better prediction of whether someone is religous by discussing a non-religous political issue with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s not as if there's a direct causation in either direction or even a solid correlation between religousity and closed-mindedness in general, but it’s not non-existant either.

Here’s a topic that may fit your question, perhaps too simplistic but a start. ‘Mandatory sentencing’. Keeping in mind the very different psychological reasons people may need a religious worldview ( the religious right and the new-agers are examples of that), wouldn’t probing the ‘reasons’ they give for their position on that issue reveal something about the nature of their religious beliefs? Did you have a topic in mind?

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The closed-mindedness you’d exhibit if I tried to convince you in some logical way that you should prefer cats is closed-mindedness … not receptive to alternative ideas on it.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm I'm open to this idea but don't think its reasonable. Throw all the ideas you like at me and I'll be receptive to thinking about them, I might even try some of them but if I find I prefer A to B then it would be perverse to chose A rather than openminded.

[ QUOTE ]
Here’s a topic that may fit your question, perhaps too simplistic but a start. ‘Mandatory sentencing’. Keeping in mind the very different psychological reasons people may need a religious worldview ( the religious right and the new-agers are examples of that), wouldn’t probing the ‘reasons’ they give for their position on that issue reveal something about the nature of their religious beliefs? Did you have a topic in mind?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think view on a matter of fact is better than a policy. heres an idea:

In the uk support for the Iraq war doesn't particularly divide along religous lines. Also support for political parties doesn't fall along religous lines. Lets assume supoport for the war and support for parties is equal amongst religous people (we could allow for a bias anyway but its simpler).

Then a much debated topic we could use is: Did Tony Blair deliberately mislead the country in the lead up to the war?

I claim people are closedminded about politics because there will be a strong correlation between:

Those who previously supported Tony Blair and think the answer is no.
Those who disliked Tony Blair and think the answer is yes.
Those who were against the war and think the answer is yes.
Those who were for the war and think the answer is no.

A large part of this correlation will be down to closedmindedness so if we take all the people who fall into these groups and there's a correlation between closedmindeness and religon then we would expect the proportion of religous people found to be higher than in the general population.

My guess is that it wouldn't be.

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
As a theist I say "Use rationality where you can but there are situations where you cant - here you have to fall back on irrational reasons for beliefs........If I was intolerant I could adopt either of these positions and call the other close-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]I think this line of logic falls down a bit. Does this mean that whenever someone views the world a certain way that we must be open minded to their beliefs even if everything we have ever observed in human history shows no or contradictory evidence to support thier view?

Why should I be open minded towards a catholic's view any more than I should be towards a person's view that the world is run by a kingdom on mystical gigantic purple bunnies?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a theist I say "Use rationality where you can but there are situations where you cant - here you have to fall back on irrational reasons for beliefs........If I was intolerant I could adopt either of these positions and call the other close-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]I think this line of logic falls down a bit. Does this mean that whenever someone views the world a certain way that we must be open minded to their beliefs even if everything we have ever observed in human history shows no or contradictory evidence to support thier view?

Why should I be open minded towards a catholic's view any more than I should be towards a person's view that the world is run by a kingdom on mystical gigantic purple bunnies?

[/ QUOTE ]
No reason why we shouldn't be open-minded to any view but that means treating it on its merits not accepting it as as reasonable as any other view.

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
No reason why we shouldn't be open-minded to any view but that means treating it on its merits not accepting it as as reasonable as any other view

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed. However, would you then agree that it is not closed-minded to look at religon, say there is no reason or evidence to support it, say there is as much reason to believe in Jesus as Gigantic Purple Bunnies, and then to dismiss religon until there is better support for it?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No reason why we shouldn't be open-minded to any view but that means treating it on its merits not accepting it as as reasonable as any other view

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed. However, would you then agree that it is not closed-minded to look at religon, say there is no reason or evidence to support it, say there is as much reason to believe in Jesus as Gigantic Purple Bunnies, and then to dismiss religon until there is better support for it?

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no reason to believe in god. There's also plenty of good reasons to believe religon is man-made.

If that's the sort of thing you mean by 'dismiss' then its consistent with being open-minded.

chez

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no reason to believe in god. There's also plenty of good reasons to believe religon is man-made.

If that's the sort of thing you mean by 'dismiss' then its consistent with being open-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. That is exactly what I mean. The problem comes in the discussion on religion. To many, even challenging religion is consider closed-minded. Additionally, the framework for discussion makes a fair debate impossible as the religion advocates will dismiss any attempts to use logic or observation.

fwiw - I am not dismissing the presense of some sort of God. Clearly, there is way too much unknown about our world to do so. However, I have little trouble dismissing both the common notions of God and the current beliefs of the major religons as there is no body of evidence to support them and there is often contradictory evidence.

[spaminator101]

heck why shouldn't we be closed minded were all closedminded. every one thinks their right. ask any muslim or hindu or morman and theyll tell you the same thing.

[J. Stew]

Closed-mindedness isn't religious or non-religious. If someone is closed minded they are that. Religious people are sometimes stereotyped as being closed-minded because the main point of religion is to realize who you are and this creates battles because everybody has a different idea of the same thing.

[cliff]

I think a key point here is that the two worldviews can not engage in a meaningful logical argument because they come to the dialogue with a different set of unerlying assumptions. The "rational" believer may believe in science, etc. and additionally that there is a supreme diety while the athiest believes the first parts but not the last. I have argued with some very intellegent christians in my life and personally think this is the core. I.e. the two different axiom sets may be self consistent but no argument can be resolved in a common language. Similar to someone who takes all of Euclid's axioms arguing with someone who adheres to non-Euclidean geometry (i.e. drops or modifies the parallel lines non-intersecting axiom). Neither set is "true" in any provabl sense but are the minimum assumptions they believe to be corrrct, which is a statement of faith of some sort. So even in math and logic, there is always a basis of some sort of faith.

It seems to me that the central issue is that such an argument lies in the ralm of metaphysics and is not resolvable the language of everyday math, logic, or physics. As such, neither view is provably true or false by means of logic, rather relies on faith of some sort (in or against a god). Not sure if I am making the point I want, but a lot of effort is spent in my opinion in attempting to do the impossible. I can not say for sure that others have not received some kind of revelation that I have not and they can not convince me of the existence of such.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a key point here is that the two worldviews can not engage in a meaningful logical argument because they come to the dialogue with a different set of unerlying assumptions. The "rational" believer may believe in science, etc. and additionally that there is a supreme diety while the athiest believes the first parts but not the last. I have argued with some very intellegent christians in my life and personally think this is the core. I.e. the two different axiom sets may be self consistent but no argument can be resolved in a common language. Similar to someone who takes all of Euclid's axioms arguing with someone who adheres to non-Euclidean geometry (i.e. drops or modifies the parallel lines non-intersecting axiom). Neither set is "true" in any provabl sense but are the minimum assumptions they believe to be corrrct, which is a statement of faith of some sort. So even in math and logic, there is always a basis of some sort of faith.

It seems to me that the central issue is that such an argument lies in the ralm of metaphysics and is not resolvable the language of everyday math, logic, or physics. As such, neither view is provably true or false by means of logic, rather relies on faith of some sort (in or against a god). Not sure if I am making the point I want, but a lot of effort is spent in my opinion in attempting to do the impossible. I can not say for sure that others have not received some kind of revelation that I have not and they can not convince me of the existence of such.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a very good point. One thing I would disagree with is your claim that the two cannot engage in meaningful logical argument. It is possible to logically criticise a position whose axioms you dont accept. I find it beneficial to argue with atheists here, not because I harbour any hopes of "converting" them (I wouldnt try to convert anyone to my view) but because their criticism of my position and their searching for inconsitencies allows me to refine my beliefs.

Broadly though, I agree that there is not much to be gained in trying to logically argue for or against God's existence.

[cliff]

Strictly speaking, you can argue with the axioms themselves or for or against the consistency of the claims made within the system given the axioms. But the first argument (about the axiom) is the very thing you were trying to resolve in the first place. I don't mean that it is useless to argue for/against religion but rather that the fundamentals of either side become one of "faith" or "reasonableness", both of which are valid bases in my mind but that construction makes the oppurtunity of "proving" anything impossible.

I am not a believer, but have friends whose intellect and mathematical training I respect greatly who are and hold what I consider rational worldviews which include the existnce of god, god's grace, etc. But, unless I receive a revelation of the sort they claim to achieved I will not be able to share the presuppositions that underlie their arguments. I may not have this correct, but this is how I have always understood Kierkregaard's "leap of faith", to non-rationally accept god's existence and then enter into a meta-system where rationality is again possible with the new "axiom".

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
In general ive heard many people say that they dont like religon/religous (especially christians) people because they are "closeminded" . I always sort of went along with their thoughts but then i wondered about atheists. Aren't they just as closeminded or even more closeminded than a Christian? An atheist only one way to be atheist- to believe there is no god, while there are many Christian denominations and most Christians agree that people from (m)any of these denominations will be saved.
Im not saying atheists or religous are more or less closeminded but why is it that the religous are often portrayed as being closedminded ?

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, I have found that people criticize others the most for qualities they hold themselves.

Liars hate other liars, obnoxious people think everyone else is obnoxious, closed-minded people hate closed minded people.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The question asked can be answered in another way.

The nenial of concept comes after its generation which comes after an emptiness.

blank space or emptiness = open mindedness
belief in a god concept = close mindedness
eliminating the belief in a concept = back to open mindedness



[/ QUOTE ]

Why should blank space or emptiness be more believable than God? What is your proof that one concept precedes the other?