Closed mindedness

[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".