Atheists LESS open minded than Religious

[Silmarien]

If you talk to fundamentalist Christians or New Atheists, you are not going to find open mindedness.

You'll find plenty of rampant sexism, though! It's like a mirror image!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, but the fundamentalist is emotionally invested in whatever unhealthy remix of the religion they have concocted for themselves. If an atheist is similarly emotionally invested in some caricature of the religion, any claim to being more tolerant goes out the window.

I never claimed to be tolerant. Our back-and-forth here is a result of the OP providing the wrong title. Open mindedness and tolerance are different things. But I can't just look at the content of the OP and let the title slide. Something had to be said about it and I did that.

I'm open minded in that I am willing to consider any evidence or line of reasoning. Christians and Muslims simply are not. If you think you are, I'll be happy to convert you to atheism free of charge or else expose your closed mindedness.

Do you need to be a Muslim to think that anything of real value could come out of the Islamic world? What was the topic of this thread again?

Again, I'm responding to the "open minded" part of the title because the OP is trying to slip one by us.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you talk to fundamentalist Christians or New Atheists, you are not going to find open mindedness.

Are you equivocating open mindedness with tolerance again? Or do you really mean to imply that atheists are unwilling to consider a line of reasoning?

But yeah, after everything the Catholic church has done - especially in recent years - I think "tolerance" is off the table when it comes to dealing with them.

 

[keith99]

Being an evil atheist I did the unthinkable. I spent 2 whole minutes and used Google. Lo and behold I found the intolerance atheists and agnostics have is a good thing. It is intolerance of contradiction. Probably why I do nasty things like digging when something smells rotten, like this time.

Are atheists undogmatic?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure why you equivocate open mindedness with toleration. But we can settle this right now.

Let's pretend that Christians and atheists are both wrong. Let's pretend Islam is the correct religion.

Will you forsake Jesus and revere Muhammad instead? Will you continue to believe in your Jesus even though you know he's not real? Or will you give up on religion altogether?

Nearly every Christian (and I'd bet this includes you) *will refuse* to consider this hypothetical. Nearly every atheist *will* consider it and give an answer.

So please, tell us more about how Christians are more open minded.

Oh,...you mean trade an Orthodox interpretation of the Gospel of Luke for a somewhat gnostic and subpar interpretation of the Gospel of Luke (among other interpretive distortions of the Bible)? Trade one version of Jesus out for another version of Jesus? I ask this because essentially, that is what converting to Islam would be, if coming from a Christian position.

No, I think I'll pass ... Islam isn't correct.

And am I open minded? I'm going to answer "yes." I'll let you guess why, NV.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Meowzltov]

Are you equivocating open mindedness with tolerance again? Or do you really mean to imply that atheists are unwilling to consider a line of reasoning?

My understanding of open mindedness is empathy for the other's position, the ability to put yourself, at least for a time, in their shoes and see things through their eyes, even if their reasoning is poor. After all, a person can have poor reasoning and still be right -- they may simply be bad at putting things into words.

I'm saying that SOME atheists, particularly the New Atheist sort, do not have that sort of empathy.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm open minded in that I am willing to consider any evidence or line of reasoning. Christians and Muslims simply are not. If you think you are, I'll be happy to convert you to atheism free of charge or else expose your closed mindedness.

Presumptuous too, I see.

I did my Bachelor's in philosophy as a nontheist, so there's no argument in the skeptic's handbook that I haven't used myself. I believe that agnosticism is the only fully rational position, so you would have as delightful a time trying to convince me of atheism as I would have trying to push you to theism.

I'm into Christian existentialism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and postmodern theology in general, so I'm pretty sure we'd be talking past each other in pretty much every manner conceivable.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My understanding of open mindedness is empathy for the other's position, the ability to put yourself, at least for a time, in their shoes and see things through their eyes, even if their reasoning is poor. After all, a person can have poor reasoning and still be right -- they may simply be bad at putting things into words.

I'm saying that SOME atheists, particularly the New Atheist sort, do not have that sort of empathy.

Well then this thread is poorly titled and confusing.

 

[Silmarien]

Being an evil atheist I did the unthinkable. I spent 2 whole minutes and used Google. Lo and behold I found the intolerance atheists and agnostics have is a good thing. It is intolerance of contradiction. Probably why I do nasty things like digging when something smells rotten, like this time.

Are atheists undogmatic?

"Intolerance of contradiction and myside bias."

That second bit isn't so good. I am surprised it's worse for atheists than theists, though. Could be that European theists are more comfortable with secular ideas.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'm open minded in that I am willing to consider any evidence or line of reasoning.

I doubt that. But at any rate, I suspect you are not willing to accept existential evidence. Your post seems to say that you rely entirely on reasoning, and folks that do that are weak in empathy.

 

[Meowzltov]

I'm into Christian existentialism

the Christian existentialists were very rational people. They pushed reasoning all the way to the wall. It was only when reasoning could take them no further that they stepped through in faith.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well then this thread is poorly titled and confusing.

The thread is titled to convey what the article is saying. I thought the article was interesting, and am open to its possibility, though I stick to my theory of temperament being the deciding factor of openness.

 

[keith99]

My understanding of open mindedness is empathy for the other's position, the ability to put yourself, at least for a time, in their shoes and see things through their eyes, even if their reasoning is poor. After all, a person can have poor reasoning and still be right -- they may simply be bad at putting things into words.

I'm saying that SOME atheists, particularly the New Atheist sort, do not have that sort of empathy.

An interesting view. I see a problem applying it to this kind of research however. One can have empathy in the sense you are using and still at the end of the day reject the position of the opposing view because it simply does not stand up. Not that I reject your idea, I find it a good one in large part for the very reasons that make it hard to measure in a survey situation.

 

[Silmarien]

the Christian existentialists were very rational people. They pushed reasoning all the way to the wall. It was only when reasoning could take them no further that they stepped through in faith.

Mmm, I think the difference is that everyone else had been trying to prove everything rationally and the existentialists turned around and said that faith is by its very nature unreasonable. And then they celebrated that.

Granted, I kind of ended up with a really lopsided view of faith after reading Kierkegaard and thought that Christianity was all about blindly believing things based on intuition alone. Whoops.

 

[Meowzltov]

An interesting view. I see a problem applying it to this kind of research however. One can have empathy in the sense you are using and still at the end of the day reject the position of the opposing view because it simply does not stand up. Not that I reject your idea, I find it a good one in large part for the very reasons that make it hard to measure in a survey situation.

Oh, of course! We are on the same page here. One can be open minded, and yet be comfortable where they are in their opinion.

Yet I find that when one empathizes with the other, one starts to incorporate bits and pieces of the opposing view that DO make sense, even if one doesn't accept it hook line and sinker. For example, I'm a Christian and not a Buddhist, yet I have learned Mindfulness from the Buddhists. I'm a Christian and not an Atheist, yet I have learned to have a healthy skepticism and appreciation for reasoning from Atheists.

Similarly, I know a few Atheists, and quite a LOT of Agnostics, who feel they have learned some things from religion: the importance of community and shared values, for example, and the fact that believers are healthier and happier and live longer. I have an Atheist friend who goes to an Orthodox Synagogue every Friday night and prays -- He is an Atheist six days a week, and a theist on the seventh day. I know Agnostics who have wonderfully developed Spirituality. Some of them are even religious, Buddhists, and Taoists and Christians and Jews... It still doesn't mean they believe in a God--they don't know that there is a God.

 

[Meowzltov]

Mmm, I think the difference is that everyone else had been trying to prove everything rationally and the existentialists turned around and said that faith is by its very nature unreasonable. And then they celebrated that.

I don't think faith contradicts reason. I just think it goes beyond reason. Soren Kierkegaard is my personal favorite. He was one brilliant reasoner -- who stepped past into the unknown. It reminds me of The Wall by Kansas. Do you remember that? Oldie but goodie.

 

[keith99]

"Intolerance of contradiction and myside bias."

That second bit isn't so good. I am surprised it's worse for atheists than theists, though. Could be that European theists are more comfortable with secular ideas.

I'm wondering how they measured either of those. While I personally find intolerance of contradiction to be a good thing as it indicates rational thought and implies finding a rational solution when there is a contradiction I also know it is something that is very easy to rig a survey for. All one needs to do is put forth a case where the emotional response and the rational response lead to different conclusions. These will occur most in different places for different groups. A radical feminist will be totally consistent regarding abortion. A Christian is apt to have problems when the fetus is the result of rape or incest. And some get positively absurd when contrasting incest to genetic defects! But a radical feminist can raise illogic to new heights if a woman chooses to become a housewife. Pick the potential conflicts where for one group logic and emotion get the same result and for the other they differ and your result is all but guaranteed.

On the myside bias we have no idea just how it was determined. Perhaps the atheists supposed bias is in fact no such thing, it is just contrary to the researches own biases. Another possibility is the supposed bias is regarding positions supported by reason for the atheists and agnostics and not supported by reason for those of faith.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't think faith contradicts reason. I just think it goes beyond reason. Soren Kierkegaard is my personal favorite. He was one brilliant reasoner -- who stepped past into the unknown. It reminds me of The Wall by Kansas. Do you remember that? Oldie but goodie.

No, definitely agreed! I mean "unreasonable" as "not provable through reason." Though Christianity in particular does fly in the face of reality as we know it. Which has always been the point.

I'm wondering how they measured either of those. While I personally find intolerance of contradiction to be a good thing as it indicates rational thought and implies finding a rational solution when there is a contradiction I also know it is something that is very easy to rig a survey for. All one needs to do is put forth a case where the emotional response and the rational response lead to different conclusions. These will occur most in different places for different groups. A radical feminist will be totally consistent regarding abortion. A Christian is apt to have problems when the fetus is the result of rape or incest. And some get positively absurd when contrasting incest to genetic defects! But a radical feminist can raise illogic to new heights if a woman chooses to become a housewife. Pick the potential conflicts where for one group logic and emotion get the same result and for the other they differ and your result is all but guaranteed.

On the myside bias we have no idea just how it was determined. Perhaps the atheists supposed bias is in fact no such thing, it is just contrary to the researches own biases. Another possibility is the supposed bias is regarding positions supported by reason for the atheists and agnostics and not supported by reason for those of faith.

Good question. They could even have had people argue from alternative points of view or something along those lines. I think that would still count.

But I see intolerance of contradiction as good as well... at least for the most part. When you use it to reject religious paradoxes, I think you've moved right into rigid thinking. (I mean things like the Trinity, not things like there being two contradictory creation myths in Genesis.) But by and large, yes, I do agree.

[Edit] Just ran into this, which would be one way of testing something like myside bias: Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mmm, I think the difference is that everyone else had been trying to prove everything rationally and the existentialists turned around and said that faith is by its very nature unreasonable. And then they celebrated that.

Granted, I kind of ended up with a really lopsided view of faith after reading Kierkegaard and thought that Christianity was all about blindly believing things based on intuition alone. Whoops.

And so, as it turns out, when we were reminiscing about everything Jesus said and did while sitting around in Heaven drinking lemonade with Him, His warning to us about being wary of traveling the wide road finally made sense: Don't fall into Lessing's Ditch! And we smiled and laughed for a while, and drank another sip of our existential lemonade..........................................................

Peace,
2Philovoid

 

[Meowzltov]

No, definitely agreed! I mean "unreasonable" as "not provable through reason." Though Christianity in particular does fly in the face of reality as we know it. Which has always been the point.

Well, Christianity makes exceptional claims for things outside the norm. There are those Christians who claim God breaks the laws of nature, but then again there are those Christians who say he does not, but simply does things that are highly improbable -- even the virgin birth COULD have happened, God just tinkered with the dice. I once talked to a man from Romania who was tortured under the communists; he said his heart stopped while being brutalized, but he "came to" the next day in the morgue.