Atheists LESS open minded than Religious

[Silmarien]

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.

Nah, it's more the "Hey guys, death is unnatural, the universe as you know it is broken and is in the process of being set right" claim that is just... WHAT!?

So it's not the exceptional claims so much as the Gospel itself. Which by its nature kind of crushes everything you think you know, because there's subversive and then there's... that. I've been reading Orthodox theodicy, where things get really maximalistic.

 

[quatona]

Changing your mind on something doesn't make you more open-minded.

While I agree that it doesn´t make you more open-minded, this in my understanding hasn´t been the point. The point has been that the ability to change your mind is a token of being open-minded.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

While I agree that it doesn´t make you more open-minded, this in my understanding hasn´t been the point. The point has been that the ability to change your mind is a token of being open-minded.

Ever heard of the Zeal of the converted? Changing your mind might have meant someone had been open-minded, doesn't mean they still are necessarily. We could make a similar argument for converts from Atheism to theism, as well, so this is a fairly moot point.

 

[quatona]

Ever heard of the Zeal of the converted?

Yes.

Changing your mind might have meant someone had been open-minded, doesn't mean they still are necessarily.

I wonder why you have to take my statement of criteria to the level of absoluteness ("necessarily") before you address it. Well, actually I am not really wondering...
Of course, the fact that someone has proven their open-mindedness in the past, doesn´t mean they are still open-minded.
Now, where that leaves the whole idea of being able to judge someone´s open-mindedness?

We could make a similar argument for converts from Atheism to theism, as well, so this is a fairly moot point.

Why does that make it a moot point, then?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why does that make it a moot point, then?

Because it can be debated that atheists or theists are therefore 'open-minded'. The observation does not really add to the discussion at all.

 

[quatona]

Because it can be debated that atheists or theists are therefore 'open-minded'. The observation does not really add to the discussion at all.

A person being able to change their minds is "open-minded". That´s how we tell.
If you want to add other criteria, feel free to go ahead.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So when Atheists accuse us of being closed minded, they are really complimenting us?

Okay, you got me.

I'll rephrase.

In my experience, whenever theists accuse atheists of not being "open minded" about their religion of choice, what they really mean, is that the atheist isn't gullible

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.




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

Interesting article. ...I guess I have to work on not being a 'freeloader.'

 

[Silmarien]

While I agree that it doesn´t make you more open-minded, this in my understanding hasn´t been the point. The point has been that the ability to change your mind is a token of being open-minded.

I would agree, but I would also agree with Quid. I've also noticed a certain tendency to take what mindset you once had and then apply it to your new position as well--when a fundamentalist loses faith, you can expect the same uncompromising rigidity in their atheism. Same goes for converts to theism, of course. All in all, I think conversion is too complicated a phenonemon to use as evidence of open-mindedness.

Interesting article. ...I guess I have to work on not being a 'freeloader.'

Hey, don't make me quote Paul at you!

 

[Meowzltov]

Okay, you got me.

I'll rephrase.

In my experience, whenever theists accuse atheists of not being "open minded" about their religion of choice, what they really mean, is that the atheist isn't gullible

No, that's not what we mean. We mean close minded -- that the atheist is completely unable to put himself into our shoes to consider what it truly means to be a theist, what the world looks like through our eyes, what our arguments really look like to us.

The very fact that you needed to switch words rather than accept what we said, demonstrates a lack of empathy on your part. This is exactly the sort of close mindedness that we are pointing out.

Posts, however, are notoriously misunderstood, so hopefully I have you pegged wrong.

 

[Meowzltov]

I've been reading Orthodox theodicy, where things get really maximalistic.

Where our nature becomes like God's nature? What is the problem? It springs from being created in God's image. It only makes sense that we would be able, with God's help, to return to that. It's a lifelong process though. And you don't really see it in a whole lot of people.

 

[Silmarien]

Where our nature becomes like God's nature? What is the problem? It springs from being created in God's image. It only makes sense that we would be able, with God's help, to return to that. It's a lifelong process though. And you don't really see it in a whole lot of people.

No, that's theosis. Theodicy as in the Problem of Evil--I just finished David Bentley Hart's The Doors of the Sea, and he pretty much rejects out of hand any attempt to justify evil, human or natural, as part of the divine plan. No "best of all possible worlds" approach here; instead you have a fullblown denial of evil, the original meaning of divine judgment: "Behold, I make all things new." So there comes a point at which you wrap your head around the Gospel and the only question left standing is, "Is this too good to be true?"

I've been trying to untangle my bizarre relationship with Christianity for months now, and... it has been quite the adventure! Turns out I got run over by the Gospel in its purest form a decade ago without realizing it, and that was what first shoved me hard towards theism. I have other reasons now, but I really can't look at that and think that there was anything neutral about that first conversion.

Of course, the problem is that I have a whole bunch of unexamined presuppositions from my days of being hostile towards religion. When you're committed to the idea that transcendental values don't exist, it's hard to look at the opposing viewpoint objectively or admit that your own is equally theoretical. I in some ways still think like a naturalist despite rejecting naturalistic metaphysics, which is an amusingly on-topic observation to make. There's always the task of differentiating between what you refuse to consider simply because you've always refused to consider it, and what you have genuine problems with.

I have been forced to become a theologian, haha.

 

[Meowzltov]

I have been forced to become a theologian, haha.

What a journey! Anyhow, I'd like to welcome you to the amateur theologians club.

 

[quatona]

No, that's not what we mean. We mean close minded -- that the atheist is completely unable to put himself into our shoes to consider what it truly means to be a theist, what the world looks like through our eyes,

Yes, that´s - at least for me - pretty hard to do. Anyway, as far as I can tell from my interactions with theists, it varies greatly from one theist to the next.

what our arguments really look like to us.

I´m generally assuming that someone´s own arguments look convincing to themselves.
Open-mindedness however, at least in my understanding, doesn´t mean that you find an argument convincing just because someone else does.

The very fact that you needed to switch words rather than accept what we said, demonstrates a lack of empathy on your part. This is exactly the sort of close mindedness that we are pointing out.

Empathy and open-mindedness appear to be two entirely different concepts.

 

[variant]

Anybody here wanna pay about $40 for the paper referenced? How are we supposed to discuss the contents? Since I'm open-minded and all, I'd like to consider the actual data.

I'm closed off from considering a proposition if the evidence you present is not adequate to warrant consideration. You can call that close-minded if you want, but if that's one's definition of close-minded I will wear that with pride. Conversely, I've found theists to be more credulous. Theists, however, seem to be more prone to believe in ghosts, guardian angels, alien visitation, psychics, tarot readings, horoscopes and so on. I'll consider if these things are true when the claims can be backed up in some way.

Yeah it's hard to be open to the ideas of a study when you can't actually read it in detail but are instead reduced to reading interpretations of it.

 

[Meowzltov]

I´m generally assuming that someone´s own arguments look convincing to themselves.
Empathy and open-mindedness appear to be two entirely different concepts.

I can usually see WHY an argument is appealing. For example, I can understand WHY someone is an agnostic or an atheist, even though I think the probability is on the other side; I can see the appeal for myself.
I think the basis for open mindedness is empathy. Perhaps is is also the perceiving of options, and not being so quick to come to decisions, although that sort of person wouldn't have strong opinions: if option #1 is 80% probable, i'm going to believe Option #1. My opinions are pretty strong, yet I still can place myself in the other's shoes and UNDERSTAND down to my toes why they believe what they believe.

 

[quatona]

I can usually see WHY an argument is appealing.

Personally, I don´t think the strength of an argument is being appealing.
I can understand why a belief is appealing; however, when it comes to arguments for that belief, I am switching to reason and logic.

For example, I can understand WHY someone is an agnostic or an atheist,

Exactly my point - I can understand why someone is a theist, too. That does not, however, help me perceive their argument as convincing.

even though I think the probability is on the other side;

Personally, I can´t deal with these things in terms of probablitity.

I can see the appeal for myself.

I can see how certain God concepts are appealing for myself, too. But that doesn´t affect the quality (or lack thereof) of the arguments for them.

I think the basis for open mindedness is empathy.

Of course you are free to define words as you see fit. I am defining "open minded" more to the lines of e.g. the Cambridge Dictionary:
willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to your own

 

[keith99]

Looking for why an argument is appealing is implicitly saying it is a failing argument. A form of something C.S. Lewis called Bulverism, named after a fictional character who skipped looking at if something was correct of not and jumped to explaining away the opposing position based on why it was appealing to the person who held the position.

 

[Meowzltov]

Exactly my point - I can understand why someone is a theist, too. That does not, however, help me perceive their argument as convincing.

Let me give you an example. I'm a Trinitarian. I believe that Jesus is God. It is a primary part of my spirituality that God loved us so much that he took the form of a man and suffered and died for us. BUT I can understand very much the Jewish idea that Trinitarianism violates Echad, that it splits up God, and crosses over into polytheism.

 

[quatona]

Let me give you an example. I'm a Trinitarian. I believe that Jesus is God. It is a primary part of my spirituality that God loved us so much that he took the form of a man and suffered and died for us. BUT I can understand very much the Jewish idea that Trinitarianism violates Echad, that it splits up God, and crosses over into polytheism.

Ok, I understand both views, too - but what does that have to do with arguments? You haven´t posted arguments, neither for their nor for your own view.