Atheists LESS open minded than Religious

[Meowzltov]

Atheists are less tolerant than religious people, study claims

A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas. Religious believers "seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives", according to psychology researchers at the private Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium's largest French-speaking university.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Be wary of anyone who describes themselves as either open-minded, compassionate, kind, generous or honest. They are most likely delusional, pathological liars or lacking any proper self-awareness..

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This was my own experience. I had thought myself quite open-minded as an atheist, but in retrospect I embraced a very narrow empiric worldview.

As a theist, I came to see this and realised how silly I had been. It is weird how all 'free-thinkers' I know of, embrace remarkably similar positions on concepts like personal morality and such.

CS Lewis said something similar: " How monotonously alike the great tyrants and conquerors have been; how gloriously different are the saints."

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Be wary of anyone who describes themselves as either open-minded, compassionate, kind, generous or honest. They are most likely delusional or pathological liars.

Or democratic or free; which are often also nothing of the sort.

 

[quatona]

Atheists are less tolerant than religious people, study claims

A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas. Religious believers "seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives", according to psychology researchers at the private Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium's largest French-speaking university.

I find it somewhat curious when the result of a study is presented in the form of "seem to...".

I find it even more curious when the author of the study next rashes to a conclusion such as "irreligion has become normative" (which is way beyond what the study was about).

He also does not come across as a very careful thinker when he lumps together secularism and liberalism, religiosity and conservativism ("“The idea started through noticing that, in public discourse, despite both the conservative/religious groups and liberal/secular groups showing strong animosity towards the opposite ideological side, somehow it was mostly the former who were often labeled as ‘closed-minded’.").

Furthermore, in the above quote he interestingly presents the result to be about "close-mindedness", whereas the study is about "intolerance" - which are completely different concepts.

With that being said, I had to chuckle a bit when I read the "somewhat surprisingly" in “Somewhat surprisingly, when it came to subtly measured inclination to integrate views that were diverging and contrary to one’s own perspectives, it was the religious who showed more openness."

It would be interesting to see how the study was conducted, what the questions were etc. - IOW what its criteria were for the "subtly-measured intolerance" that it searched about. (Hopefully this wasn´t done in a similarly intellectually sloppy way as the presentation of the results in this article.)

 

[Dave RP]

Atheists are less tolerant than religious people, study claims

A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas. Religious believers "seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives", according to psychology researchers at the private Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium's largest French-speaking university.

I'd be very nervous about the fact that this research was carried out by "psychology researchers at the private Catholic University of Louvain". As a Catholic institution there is the distinct possibility of bias in their research.

 

[quatona]

I'd be very nervous about the fact that this research was carried out by "psychology researchers at the private Catholic University of Louvain". As a Catholic institution there is the distinct possibility of bias in their research.

And yet, they were "somewhat surprised" by their findings.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

As a Catholic institution there is the distinct possibility of bias in their research.

Come on. Catholics have never been nor never will be biased in any shape or form. To suggest so would be totally biased!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheists are less tolerant than religious people, study claims

A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas. Religious believers "seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives", according to psychology researchers at the private Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium's largest French-speaking university.

In my experience, whenever people accuse someone of not being "open minded", what they really mean, is that the person isn't gullible.

Being "open minded" does NOT mean that you are open to consider just about any idea anyone can come up with.

It rather means that one is willing to change his mind when shown that whatever one believes, is in fact incorrect.

However in conversations with theists, I frequently get called "closed minded" simply because I am unwilling to entertain unfalsifiable ideas that even fly in the face of the evidence of reality.

To put it in extreme terms for extra clarity...
A geographer who's not willing to entertain the ideas of a flat earther is not "closed minded".
An embryologist who's not willing to waste time on Stork Theory is not "closed minded".

Or to put it in the words of professor Dawkins: "We should have an open mind... but not so open, that our brains are falling out!"

 

[DogmaHunter]

This was my own experience. I had thought myself quite open-minded as an atheist, but in retrospect I embraced a very narrow empiric worldview.

As a theist, I came to see this and realised how silly I had been. It is weird how all 'free-thinkers' I know of, embrace remarkably similar positions on concepts like personal morality and such.

See, this is what I mean.
An empirical world view is not "narrow" or "closed minded". It just means that you value the importance of holding beliefs that are in accordance with the evidence of reality and that you aren't willing to believe things that aren't.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Those wicked liberals are open-minded btw. They open their mind so wide and let Satan and all his evil mates in. That's why its better to be clothes-minded in my opinion.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

See, this is what I mean.
An empirical world view is not "narrow" or "closed minded". It just means that you value the importance of holding beliefs that are in accordance with the evidence of reality and that you aren't willing to believe things that aren't.

You are illustrating what I mean nicely here. Empirical worldviews only value what can be quantified, assume this equates to 'reality', and deny any reasoning to the contrary or questioning of the metaphysical underpinnings this entails.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are illustrating what I mean nicely here. Empirical worldviews only value what can be quantified,

No. What can be supported with evidence. And also not "value" but believe.

Why is that a bad thing?

assume this equates to 'reality'

Errr... empirical data reflects reality by definition, not by assumption.

, and deny any reasoning to the contrary or questioning of the metaphysical underpinnings this entails.

What "metaphysical underpinnings"?

Explain to me in clear terms, why I, as an atheist, am apparantly "closed minded".
Use an example if that makes it easier.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No. What can be supported with evidence. And also not "value" but believe.

Why is that a bad thing?



Errr... empirical data reflects reality by definition, not by assumption.



What "metaphysical underpinnings"?

Explain to me in clear terms, why I, as an atheist, am apparantly "closed minded".
Use an example if that makes it easier.

That is a catch-22, my friend. If I could convince someone that he was close-minded, then he can't be close-minded at all.
So why undertake a fool's errand?

Anyway, Empiricism assumes the data we receive reflects what is in existence, what is actual. It assumes our perceptions and inferences are accurate. It assumes that historical instances would reflect future instances; which is particularly applicable in Science where repeatibility is assumed, that if a hundred experiments deliver the same result, it would always continue to do so. It assumes that evidence can only be applicable if measurable, it assumes our abstractions from the physical accurately reflect the thing itself, etc. There is a whole list of axioms or other propositions that need to be applied for such a worldview to be valid.

Essentially, someone is open-minded if they listen to and attempt to understand another's viewpoint. There is no reason they need believe it to be true, nor accept it. If you dismiss it out of hand, based on your own inductively-derived notions, without considering how others have determined their validity, then you are close-minded. In my experience; mind you, I am not drawing a universal rule here, however; theists are more understanding of Empiricism based systems; as they understand, accept and utilise them themselves, and metaphysical claims based thereon; than Atheists are of metaphysical claims not based thereon. I see a lot of my puerile self here, though.

Again though, a fool's errand, so I have said my peace on this matter.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is a catch-22, my friend. If I could convince someone that he was close-minded, then he can't be close-minded at all.

I didn't ask you to try and convince me. I asked you to simply explain why you think I am closed minded.

Open minded as I am, ironically, I'll happily accept your reasoning if it holds up.

Anyway, Empiricism assumes the data we receive reflects what is in existence, what is actual.

We all assume that reality is real. You don't need to be empirically minded for that.
Why would we assume that what we observe and measure with independend confirmation from other, is not reflective of reality?

It assumes our perceptions and inferences are accurate.

It does not. In fact, the entire empirical scientific method has been set up in such a way with exactly that in mind: that we can NOT simply assume that our perceptions and inferences are accurate!

That is why we use experiments, develop tools to do the measuring for us and expect our peers to double check our results.

That is why we cross check our ideas against actual reality.

It assumes that historical instances would reflect future instances; which is particularly applicable in Science where repeatibility is assumed, that if a hundred experiments deliver the same result, it would always continue to do so. It assumes that evidence can only be applicable if measurable, it assumes our abstractions from the physical accurately reflect the thing itself, etc. There is a whole list of axioms or other propositions that need to be applied for such a worldview to be valid.

And all such assumptions are reasonable and the best we got.
What would be the alternative? Dreams and visions?

Essentially, someone is open-minded if they listen to and attempt to understand another's viewpoint.

Okay. So, is an embryologist "closed minded" when he doesn't want to waste time to "listen to and attempt to understand" the viewpoint of a stork theorist?

There is no reason they need believe it to be true, nor accept it. If you dismiss it out of hand, based on your own inductively-derived notions, without considering how others have determined their validity, then you are close-minded.

So, what is it in your opinion that I am dismissing "out of hand"?

In my experience; mind you, I am not drawing a universal rule here, however; theists are more understanding of Empiricism based systems; as they understand, accept and utilise them themselves

because empiricism is demonstrably succesfull at achieving accurate answers!

, and metaphysical claims based thereon

Such as? Not that important to the point at hand, but I'm just curious.

; than Atheists are of metaphysical claims not based thereon.

Because "metaphysical claims not based thereon" are unfalsifiable and indistinguishable. Not to mention, infinite in number.

See, I am not dismissing anything "out of hand" for no reason.
In this particular case, I'm not interested in "being open minded" about such claims because they are inherently meaningless and useless. For the precise reason that they are infinite in number.

I'll also add that theists aren't "open" to such claims either, except when it concerns their own religion. Also, the VAST majority of theists didn't come to their theistic beliefs by being "open minded" to such claims... nope. They came to their beliefs because they were simply indoctrinated into it as children. They are "open minded" to such claims, because they already believe them.

Consider the fact that the vast majority of theists think about hiduism in almost the exact same way as I think of all religions.

I don't think you'll find many christians being "open minded" about the idea that cows are holy. Wouldn't you agree?

Again though, a fool's errand, so I have said my peace on this matter.

Your piece made lots of unwarranted assumptions about why I am an atheist and about why I don't buy into theism. To be clear: none of your assumptions were correct.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

To be clear: none of your assumptions were correct

Including those where you said "we all assume" and "such assumptions are reasonable" etc.?

Ah well. "En de phaei kai olesson"; Kill us in broad daylight - Iliad, book XVII.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Including those where you said "we all assume" and "such assumptions are reasonable" etc.?

No, that was just refering to the fact that all of us have to assume that reality is actually real. As in: that we are really biological entities running around in an existing space-time and that we thus aren't all brains in vats hooked up to the matrix.

I was just refering to the assumptions you made about me specifically, like where you implied that I dismiss certain things "out-of-hand" for no other reason then "it doesn't fit my beliefs".

Ah well. "En de phaei kai olesson"; Kill us in broad daylight - Iliad, book XVII.

"There can be only one" - Duncan Macleod

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, that was just refering to the fact that all of us have to assume that reality is actually real. As in: that we are really biological entities running around in an existing space-time and that we thus aren't all brains in vats hooked up to the matrix.

I was just refering to the assumptions you made about me specifically, like where you implied that I dismiss certain things "out-of-hand" for no other reason then "it doesn't fit my beliefs".

I specifically said I am not going to address the catch-22, nor did I once say my comments were applicable to you personally nor that you were close-minded - only that if you were, I couldn't convince you otherwise. Strange that you would react so acrimoniously, though, eh?

"There can be only one" - Duncan Macleod

Many a truth is said in jest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I specifically said I am not going to address the catch-22, nor did I once say my comments were applicable to you personally nor that you were close-minded - only that if you were, I couldn't convince you otherwise. Strange that you would react so acrimoniously, though, eh?

I already told you that it's not about convincing me, but simply about knowing your reasoning.

I think it's rather strange that here I am, the "closed minded atheist", trying to "listen to and understand your viewpoint", but that you aren't willing to actually engage.

And just for your interest, your reply to my post in post nr 12, very much implied that I am "closed minded like you once were when you were an atheist".
If you didn't mean it like that, great.

Then again, if not that, then I don't know what you meant.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I already told you that it's not about convincing me, but simply about knowing your reasoning.

I think it's rather strange that here I am, the "closed minded atheist", trying to "listen to and understand your viewpoint", but that you aren't willing to actually engage.

And just for your interest, your reply to my post in post nr 12, very much implied that I am "closed minded like you once were when you were an atheist".
If you didn't mean it like that, great.

Then again, if not that, then I don't know what you meant.

But I did engage. I intimated the assumptions required, the inherent propositions that need to be confirmed, and you seemed to largely agree with them.

Again, you are calling yourself the close-minded Atheist, which I have not once done. If you wish to adopt the label, by all means, but you cannot be angry at someone for name-calling when they singularly failed to do so.

Likewise my response in post 12 was on the nature of Empiric worldviews, their exclusionary tendency, which as I have said, theists also use methodologically on occasion. It was my folly to use this to the exclusion of reasoning, to blindly accept on authority and to not deconstruct my own beliefs sufficiently.