How to see the world with an open mind?

[heartsrose74]

Okay, I'm a Christian who is- having doubts. A lot of them I'm just trying to poke into how to be a woman of God and still- have an open mind. My friend is recently- removed from religion. And, I've never been the strongest Christian. But, today, she challenged my beliefs, and I clenched onto them tightly. However, she became frustrated, because I was being so stubborn and not even- willing to think. I wouldn't even provide her an answer for why- why I believe in this God, and why I'm not agnostic, or why I don't believe in the watchsetter God, who set the world to motion and walked away. I know- what I think. I believe in God. But- is it possible to have an open mind, but still believe. Do you have any advice for how I can work on my- why? Understand why I do?

 

[hedrick]

Yes, it’s possible, but it’s hard. I will admit that I see how atheists or agnostics can look at the same evidence I do and not believe that God exists. Otherwise how could good people be agnostics?

I will say that it’s painful to realize that you could be wrong. But that’s true in plenty of areas of life.

 

[Job8]

I believe in God. But- is it possible to have an open mind, but still believe. Do you have any advice for how I can work on my- why? Understand why I do?

In everyday parlance, "an open mind" means that one does not have any firm commitment to any particular position (political, social, religious, etc.) but is open to opposing ideas. Since liberalism has become the overall "religion" of the West, "an open mind" is considered a wonderful thing, and a closed mind is considered to be "narrow minded", "bigoted" or what have you. That is why you see that the majority of elected Republicans are clones of the Democrats. They have *an open mind* and believe that that is extremely popular, even though they have betrayed their principles and their trust.

When it comes to God and to Christ (and being a Christian), an open mind means that you would be open to *every wind of doctrine*, which would actually be extremely detrimental to your moral and spiritual well-being. So the Lord Jesus Christ does not give you the option of keeping an *open mind* once you receive Him as your Lord and Savior. Indeed, Christ is *the narrow way* and THE ONLY WAY to the Father (John 14:6). Jesus also said that the gate and the way to eternal life is narrow, *and few there be that find it*, whereas the road to Hell is broad and wide and *many go in thereat*. Please keep in mind that THE WORLD IS THE ENEMY OF GOD AND CHRIST. That is what Jesus said plainly.

So while we must show love and concern and hospitality and friendliness to those who are outside of Christ, we must maintain a very firm believe in what the Scriptures teach about salvation, about morality, about good works, etc. Therefore if you appeared to be *stubborn* then so be it. The Christian martyrs who died for their faith were also *stubborn* (in a good sense).

 

[Percivale]

I'd say having an open mind mostly means being willing to consider and discuss the evidence behind various beliefs. If someone asks you why you believe, you should do your best to give reasons. And discuss what others say about why they believe what they do too. Consider the Golden Rule; if you started a discussion about beliefs with a friend, how would you want them to respond?
There are some people who will accuse you of being close-minded just because you don't agree with them, so don't let that bother you, but nonetheless do your best to discuss varying views with respect and depth.

 

[dcalling]

Okay, I'm a Christian who is- having doubts. A lot of them I'm just trying to poke into how to be a woman of God and still- have an open mind. My friend is recently- removed from religion. And, I've never been the strongest Christian. But, today, she challenged my beliefs, and I clenched onto them tightly. However, she became frustrated, because I was being so stubborn and not even- willing to think. I wouldn't even provide her an answer for why- why I believe in this God, and why I'm not agnostic, or why I don't believe in the watchsetter God, who set the world to motion and walked away. I know- what I think. I believe in God. But- is it possible to have an open mind, but still believe. Do you have any advice for how I can work on my- why? Understand why I do?

I would say it is bad that you don't know why you believe in God. I was once atheist, coming from a total atheist environment. it took me many years to believe in God, first from the evidences, and later from the feelings.

For example, even without any scientific evidence, do you believe in the teachings of Christianity, i.e. that God told us not to kill, not to steal, not to covet, to love others as ourselves and even to pray for our enemies? Does that feel right to you?

An open mind is important, open mind means given evidence, you are willing to change your position. It took me many years to change my position as an atheist, from thinking how stupid the Christians are with regarding to modern science, to finding out that modern science are not starting to pointing to there must be a God. If you are interested about proofs, let me know.

 

[dhh712]

Okay, I'm a Christian who is- having doubts. A lot of them I'm just trying to poke into how to be a woman of God and still- have an open mind. My friend is recently- removed from religion. And, I've never been the strongest Christian. But, today, she challenged my beliefs, and I clenched onto them tightly. However, she became frustrated, because I was being so stubborn and not even- willing to think. I wouldn't even provide her an answer for why- why I believe in this God, and why I'm not agnostic, or why I don't believe in the watchsetter God, who set the world to motion and walked away. I know- what I think. I believe in God. But- is it possible to have an open mind, but still believe. Do you have any advice for how I can work on my- why? Understand why I do?

I used to be an atheist for many years and have a similar problem with my brother, who is frustrated with my conversion to Christianity. Probably the best way to work on your why is to become more and more familiar with what God has written in his word and use his word to explain your belief in him. It won't happen overnight (and maybe not for many years) and I struggle with this myself because my ability for memorization is really bad. Still, you can say that you trust God over what man has to say and it would help if you can provide some things that God said. That is what I usually respond to when I am confronted with why I believe in God: I trust his word.

Now it would be great if all of us could become Christian apologetics and give good logical evidences for our beliefs, but it's just not going to be that way for all of us. We can glorify God just as well with a heartfelt conviction of our need for the atoning blood of Christ based solely on the written word as the apologetic who leaves no argument for the atheist utilizing his skill as a logistician. It may be that some of the atheists will just claim we're brainwashed, which of course isn't true--there are or should be lots of reasons, evidences to us why the God of the Bible is the living, true God--but most of them will not accept the answers many of us will give them, and to that I'd say I'd rather be brainwashed by God than the world.

 

[Look Up]

I had written the following elsewhere on CF recently, addressing a person who was dropping out of Christianity. It seems largely relevant here too:

We may speak of a proof in geometry based on certain ideal definitions of points, lines, and planes, but otherwise in most intellectual endeavors "proof" must yield to concepts of evidence, probability, and extrapolations based on such concepts which might reasonably be called "faith." We do not know--have not proven--that the Higgs-Boson mass is about 126 GeV, but within a certain statistical probability, as far as the evidence points, we believe it to be so. Is no faith required for investors in the future performance of a particular stock or market (much as one would encourage seeking evidence)?

What then of empiricism? How do we know the evidence that reaches our brains from our senses corresponds with reality? Is knowledge gained via the senses proof or evidence substantiating a belief? Is there no degree of uncertainty, that is, that data we garner from our senses is sufficient to conclude a certain construction of what is out there beyond us?

I'm not arguing that for normal wear and tear we should despair of the usefulness of evidence garnered empirically (why read and write posts here otherwise?), only suggesting that faith in some object or another is necessary for normal life. I believe the back side of the wall exists right now even though I have no proof at this instant that it does while my inferences from what I know may be incorrect.

And then are there no other ways of knowing than empiricism (and inference from)? Such as that other people have done their homework in claimed fields of relative expertise? Or some other non-empirical method? If a thing existed for which we had no empirical evidence could we know it did or did not exist?

Closer to home perhaps, are there things we have evidence for (at least by way of implication), but our extrapolations from such evidence are faulty? Why does a group of people at a bar order beer after a certain pattern? Why do people vote a certain way? What causes a particular disease? Or quantum entanglement? Or what does a certain line of a Shakespearean sonnet mean? I'm not saying we are all necessarily wrong, but there are debatable conclusions out there--and unknowns--and popular conclusions (and faith in them) may be incorrect even if they form the backing for law (some vaccinations?) or cultural institutions (as history and cross-cultural studies may suggest).

And what if some given faulty extrapolation is rooted in faulty human motivation? What if we believe the wrong thing partly because we have motivation to do so? Can we see this sometimes in a business representative's view of the environmental (or customer) impact of company products and services? In partisan views by advocates of public policy? In arguments between family members? What proof--or rather evidence--do you have that you are "emotionally and intellectually open" to extrapolating from evidence for the existence of a god to such existence? Are your eyes and ears open in such a way that you are as unbiased as you claim (a question that hits all of us)?

If that were not enough, some people may have the capacity to know some things which others cannot know for lack of capacity--perhaps for example by means of giftedness or experience or their lack. Or perhaps some, functioning in such cases as passive agents, may be prevented from knowing a thing. If you were a god out there who in some sense was active in creating and shepherding (say) the world we experience empirically, but whose Being transcended what may be experienced by humans empirically (whatever that may mean), what might you think of people not knowing your existence? Not that such a god necessarily thinks like us.

I have to go, prematurely for this post. I speak at least of possibilities which, while not forming a full or entirely satisfying answer, I hope suggest more may be at stake in your OP than what is initially apparent.​

Your religion-dropping friend, in other words, may have dropped religion (whatever she had) for sincere intellectual reasons, and/or because she has motivations to do so which are not necessarily entirely honorable, and she seems to have wanted to convince you to "open your mind" (in her view of and open mind) in order for you to bolster her rejection of religion (or apparently, of theism). But unless she knows everything, she must still exercise faith in something(s), where faith is comprised of extrapolations from the relatively known to the unknown.

Be that as it may, I certainly agree with those who encourage you to make careful study of the Bible, perhaps for you particularly regarding evidences of fulfilled prophecy, of the resurrection of Jesus, of miracles, of the moral tone of Jesus and so on. There can certainly be more for you to consider, but do not expect it to be a short and easy task intellectually. Your faith during that task need not waver even if there are moments of doubt and even if you ponder, for example, the claims of various world religions (as I have in varying degrees) and secular anti-supernaturalism of the west. And yes, I dropped out of atheism once upon a time too.

And now this from Catholic apologist and social commentator G.K. Chesterton: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, I'm a Christian who is- having doubts. A lot of them I'm just trying to poke into how to be a woman of God and still- have an open mind. My friend is recently- removed from religion. And, I've never been the strongest Christian. But, today, she challenged my beliefs, and I clenched onto them tightly. However, she became frustrated, because I was being so stubborn and not even- willing to think. I wouldn't even provide her an answer for why- why I believe in this God, and why I'm not agnostic, or why I don't believe in the watchsetter God, who set the world to motion and walked away. I know- what I think. I believe in God. But- is it possible to have an open mind, but still believe. Do you have any advice for how I can work on my- why? Understand why I do?

All you have to do is be willing to allow someone who has an opposing viewpoint to explain to you why and how they make sense out of their ideas. You don't have to be pressed into a debate; just listen and learn. Then, if she's willing to agree to further exploration of her ideas, both of you can find other sources to 'challenge' what each of you think.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Emmy]

Dear heartsrose74. In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus gives us good advice, how to see the world with an open mind?
" The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." In verse 40 we are told: " on these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." What to do next? God is Love, and God wants loving sons and daughters. In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: " ask and you shall receive," we ask for Love and Joy, then we thank God and share all love and joy with our neighbour. God sees our loving efforts, and God will bless us. We keep asking and receiving, then thank God and share all Love and Joy with our neighbour. ( neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friends and not friends)
The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way: JESUS IS THE WAY.
We might stumble and forget, but then we ask God to forgive us, and carry on loving, caring, and being kind and helpful, treating all others as we would love to be treated.
The Bible tells us: " Repent and be Born Again," we change from being selfish and unloving, to be loving and caring.
Love is very catching, and a Christian`s weapon is love and compassion. People will treat us as we treat people, and gradually we change into the men and women which God wants us to be. Life will be kind and exciting, and we are showing God our Heavenly Father our love and obedience. I say this with love, heartsrose. Greetings from Emmy,
your sister in Christ.

 

[dhh712]

Your religion-dropping friend, in other words, may have dropped religion (whatever she had) for sincere intellectual reasons, and/or because she has motivations to do so which are not necessarily entirely honorable, and she seems to have wanted to convince you to "open your mind" (in her view of and open mind) in order for you to bolster her rejection of religion (or apparently, of theism). But unless she knows everything, she must still exercise faith in something(s), where faith is comprised of extrapolations from the relatively known to the unknown.

This seems hard for those who base their world-view exclusively on science to understand, that for most of them (except for those who have done the experiments themselves), their belief in the claims of science requires about the same kind of faith as those who believe in God's word does. Propaganda of the world has done of good job of fashioning such scientific claims in a positive light, making those who counter these "evidences" look like fools. However to make the statement that the discoveries come through scientific experiments are truths ignores the problem of bias which is unavoidable in every experiment even if it just the bias the researcher brings to it by being limited by their own perspective. It is probable also that many scientists do understand the uncertainty of their findings and thus they need to, or should, acknowledge the faith that makes up their adherence to the results of their experiment at least if they wish to avoid hypocrisy and double-standards.

Likewise, Christians have no scientific grounds upon which to base their beliefs in the God of the Bible--we walk by faith and not by sight. While there are many evidences to us of God those are subjective to us. To make himself known, God had to reveal himself to us; therefore there will never in this world at least, lest God makes it possible, be any empirical evidence of him. The closest thing to evidence of God, the kind which the researcher might accept, is the logical one the apologetic will give of how there is logical evidence for a God (you'll have to ask the apologist for explanation of that, I'm not one). Yet, that does not give evidence of the Christian God.

 

[talitha]

@heartsrose74 - The thing is that nonChristians see things from either an emotional perspective or an intellectual perspective, and limiting ourselves to those perspectives can result in a disenchantment with the truth of the Gospel, which is experienced from a spiritual perspective. Our emotions are changeable, and many people stop walking with God because they are angry at hypocritical Christians or angry that God is not answering prayers in the way they want, or because they are attracted by sinful lifestyles and then feel guilty for participating in them. Other people stop walking with God because from an intellectual perspective the faith feels simple and naive. I had that problem when I was younger, and it took me a long time to return to what I called "simple belief". Actually, simple belief is a function of the spirit; it is the capacity to KNOW something with complete certainty without any intellectual or emotional convincing. It's kind of like seeing. The sky outside my window is bright blue with puffy clouds; I know because I can see it. No one has to convince me of that, and I don't just "believe" it - I KNOW it. This "knowing" can appear to our friends to be foolish, but we must come to trust it more than we trust our emotions or our mind. Trusting it is the beginning of walking in the spirit.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I would suggest that your friend might be frustrated with you because you refuse to accept her basic assumptions as facts. You may not be able to prove God is what you think He is because what you think of God is a basic assumption you have. If your friend does not understand that her POV is based upon her own basic assumptions but instead she believes those assumptions to be indisputable facts then she will think you are being obstinate instead of realizing you just look at some things in a different way than she does because your basic assumptions are different than hers. Having an open mind does not mean rejecting your own basic assumptions it means accepting that others have different ones and that neither one of you can claim that your basic assumptions are superior.

 

[Look Up]

This seems hard for those who base their world-view exclusively on science to understand, that for most of them (except for those who have done the experiments themselves), their belief in the claims of science requires about the same kind of faith as those who believe in God's word does. Propaganda of the world has done of good job of fashioning such scientific claims in a positive light, making those who counter these "evidences" look like fools. However to make the statement that the discoveries come through scientific experiments are truths ignores the problem of bias which is unavoidable in every experiment even if it just the bias the researcher brings to it by being limited by their own perspective. It is probable also that many scientists do understand the uncertainty of their findings and thus they need to, or should, acknowledge the faith that makes up their adherence to the results of their experiment at least if they wish to avoid hypocrisy and double-standards.

I have been surprised by the number and vehemence of naturalistic atheist denials of their own bias on the question of theism even though once upon a time I was there myself! For what it might be worth, post-1947 (Everson v Board of Education) in the US, wall of separation doctrine as it subsequently developed seems to place secular naturalism in a kind of moral high ground in arbitrating religious claims. While independence from partisan conflict may afford some hedging against bias in the case, claims of no bias in the case of theism is a myth, as I attempt to substantiate below.

Likewise, Christians have no scientific grounds upon which to base their beliefs in the God of the Bible--we walk by faith and not by sight. While there are many evidences to us of God those are subjective to us. To make himself known, God had to reveal himself to us; therefore there will never in this world at least, lest God makes it possible, be any empirical evidence of him. The closest thing to evidence of God, the kind which the researcher might accept, is the logical one the apologetic will give of how there is logical evidence for a God (you'll have to ask the apologist for explanation of that, I'm not one). Yet, that does not give evidence of the Christian God.

I'm unclear quite what you mean in some respects. If empirical naturalistic evidence (I'm not talking about quotes from Tacitus or Ireneus or the like) has been found to confirm the Trinity or the "Jesus = OT Messiah" equation (I say "OT" because of the thematic and conceptual baggage developed for the term "Messiah"), I am unaware of it even having been vetted (Trinitarian rocks?), or perhaps such evidence (The Shroud of Turin?) might be read as evidence for the Trinity or Jesus only for a minority. And I agree that for regeneration and conversion, God has to break through our willfully darkened and divinely hardened minds and hearts and reveal Himself to us in a converting way.

I would, however, argue that God has revealed something about His divine power and Godhead in His creation, and that to this extent God is "clearly perceived ... in the things that have been made" (Rom. 1:20). "What can be known about God [apparently including His wrath] is plain to them because God has shown it to them" (v. 19). Yes, what follows is ingratitude, human suppression of such revealed truth, and "a debased mind" (v. 28, but of course see the whole context). Thus when you deny there is "any empirical evidence of [God]," you seem also to deny some of Paul's argument in Rom. 1. If this is your intent, I demur. Empirical evidence for God is ubiquitous in the creation even if with our five senses we cannot directly experience the Spirit-God.

Furthermore you claim, "Christians have no scientific grounds upon which to base their beliefs in the God of the Bible." Given my argument in the above paragraph, it is difficult for me to know quite what you mean. Do you mean there is no scientific grounds for the existence of Jerusalem in David's or Jesus' day? No archaeological grounds supporting various biblical narratives? Now granted, there is a gap between (1) seeing scientific grounds for the fall of the walls of Jericho circa Joshua's day and (2) "belief in the God of the Bible," but for those who believe in the God of the Bible, does the scientific grounds behind the conclusion that the walls of Jericho fell circa Joshua's day necessarily comprise no basis for that belief in any terms whatsoever?

Can there be no evidence bolstering or suggesting faith in some object? If Christians drive cars by faith and not by sight, are they obliged to close their eyes while driving? Can Christians who drive cars with their eyes open not also exercise faith in driving? And if there is a "subjective" element to driving cars (we may not see the road as it really is at times), is there no objective truth to be had in the driving (or in exercising the Christian religion)?

Empirical evidence, I am arguing, sometimes places us under moral obligations that the evidence only suggests. (You see a leaking crack in an earthen dam. Tell others to run even though you do not know the dam will collapse.) If God reveals Himself to some to the saving of their souls, shedding light upon darkened minds through the gospel, does He never use means in doing so? Means which may include, though they can never be limited to, empirical or scientific evidence of some sort in the realm of the created order? True, God revealed Himself to me in the gospel of His Son according to the Bible, but along the way He also used empirical and scientific evidence, for example to cause me to doubt my atheism or to understand what a father is.

 

[dhh712]

I have been surprised by the number and vehemence of naturalistic atheist denials of their own bias on the question of theism even though once upon a time I was there myself! For what it might be worth, post-1947 (Everson v Board of Education) in the US, wall of separation doctrine as it subsequently developed seems to place secular naturalism in a kind of moral high ground in arbitrating religious claims. While independence from partisan conflict may afford some hedging against bias in the case, claims of no bias in the case of theism is a myth, as I attempt to substantiate below.



I'm unclear quite what you mean in some respects. If empirical naturalistic evidence (I'm not talking about quotes from Tacitus or Ireneus or the like) has been found to confirm the Trinity or the "Jesus = OT Messiah" equation (I say "OT" because of the thematic and conceptual baggage developed for the term "Messiah"), I am unaware of it even having been vetted (Trinitarian rocks?), or perhaps such evidence (The Shroud of Turin?) might be read as evidence for the Trinity or Jesus only for a minority. And I agree that for regeneration and conversion, God has to break through our willfully darkened and divinely hardened minds and hearts and reveal Himself to us in a converting way.

I would, however, argue that God has revealed something about His divine power and Godhead in His creation, and that to this extent God is "clearly perceived ... in the things that have been made" (Rom. 1:20). "What can be known about God [apparently including His wrath] is plain to them because God has shown it to them" (v. 19). Yes, what follows is ingratitude, human suppression of such revealed truth, and "a debased mind" (v. 28, but of course see the whole context). Thus when you deny there is "any empirical evidence of [God]," you seem also to deny some of Paul's argument in Rom. 1. If this is your intent, I demur. Empirical evidence for God is ubiquitous in the creation even if with our five senses we cannot directly experience the Spirit-God.

Furthermore you claim, "Christians have no scientific grounds upon which to base their beliefs in the God of the Bible." Given my argument in the above paragraph, it is difficult for me to know quite what you mean. Do you mean there is no scientific grounds for the existence of Jerusalem in David's or Jesus' day? No archaeological grounds supporting various biblical narratives? Now granted, there is a gap between (1) seeing scientific grounds for the fall of the walls of Jericho circa Joshua's day and (2) "belief in the God of the Bible," but for those who believe in the God of the Bible, does the scientific grounds behind the conclusion that the walls of Jericho fell circa Joshua's day necessarily comprise no basis for that belief in any terms whatsoever?

Can there be no evidence bolstering or suggesting faith in some object? If Christians drive cars by faith and not by sight, are they obliged to close their eyes while driving? Can Christians who drive cars with their eyes open not also exercise faith in driving? And if there is a "subjective" element to driving cars (we may not see the road as it really is at times), is there no objective truth to be had in the driving (or in exercising the Christian religion)?

Empirical evidence, I am arguing, sometimes places us under moral obligations that the evidence only suggests. (You see a leaking crack in an earthen dam. Tell others to run even though you do not know the dam will collapse.) If God reveals Himself to some to the saving of their souls, shedding light upon darkened minds through the gospel, does He never use means in doing so? Means which may include, though they can never be limited to, empirical or scientific evidence of some sort in the realm of the created order? True, God revealed Himself to me in the gospel of His Son according to the Bible, but along the way He also used empirical and scientific evidence, for example to cause me to doubt my atheism or to understand what a father is.

I'm talking about empirical evidence, as in experiments that can be repeated which prove the existence of the Biblical God (I may not have the right term for it, it's been a little while since I've been out of pharmacy school and studied these things). They don't exist, or else we can rest our belief on these things instead of faith. There are all kinds of evidence, but most for the belief in the Biblical God are going to be subjective. Creation itself is subjective evidence. Sure it points to a creator, but what repeatable experiment is going to show that or more specifically if it can show the existence of a creator, it will in no way show the existence of the Christian God as he is revealed in his word. Intelligent design is evidence, but there again are no experiments that will point to evidence of the Christian God. God has made it very clear in this world that he is revealed, not something that man can attain to by exercises of his own intelligence.

 

[aiki]

Okay, I'm a Christian who is- having doubts. A lot of them I'm just trying to poke into how to be a woman of God and still- have an open mind. My friend is recently- removed from religion. And, I've never been the strongest Christian. But, today, she challenged my beliefs, and I clenched onto them tightly. However, she became frustrated, because I was being so stubborn and not even- willing to think. I wouldn't even provide her an answer for why- why I believe in this God, and why I'm not agnostic, or why I don't believe in the watchsetter God, who set the world to motion and walked away. I know- what I think. I believe in God. But- is it possible to have an open mind, but still believe. Do you have any advice for how I can work on my- why? Understand why I do?

Isn't it interesting that despite the fact that you've "never been the strongest Christian" you refused to be moved from your beliefs by your friend? May I ask, what do you mean by not being the "strongest Christian"? Do you mean you've been half-hearted toward God? Do you mean you haven't worked to be thoroughly informed about your faith? Do you mean you've always had significant doubt about what you believe concerning God? Perhaps all of these things? God, it seems, is prompting you through your friend to go deeper with Him, to be a stronger Christian than you've been.

I don't like this business of being "open-minded." Non-believers tend to use the term in a rather lopsided and inappropriate way. What they often really mean is that being a Christian, a theist, is close-minded and thus unreasonable and being agnostic or atheistic is open-minded and thus sensible and rational. Basically, throwing around the criticism of being close-minded is often just a rhetorical maneuver by non-believers to cast the theist in an irrational light. The reality, however, is that no one is ever truly and completely open-minded. Your friend, for instance, is not open-minded about your faith. I'm sure your friend is not open-minded about 2+2=4, either. I doubt your friend thinks 2+2=7, or 28, or 315, or any other number. Isn't this being close-minded, though? Yes, it is, but truth often requires such exclusivity. If the ball is completely black, it cannot also be white, or pink, or any other color at the same time. If the animal is a dog, it can't also be a cat, or a fish, or any other species of animal. And so on. This sort of close-mindedness is not bad, however; it is not irrational. Quite the opposite. Your commitment to your faith, then, is not necessarily close-minded in an unreasonable way.

If you believe in Christ, but can't articulate why, now is the time to develop the ability to do so. I don't think it is honoring to the God in whom you claim to believe, to continue to be unable to give a reason of the hope that lies within you. Here are a couple of websites that will help you become a skilled defender of your faith:

www.str.org
www.reasonablefaith.org

Selah.

 

[Soyeong]

Okay, I'm a Christian who is- having doubts. A lot of them I'm just trying to poke into how to be a woman of God and still- have an open mind. My friend is recently- removed from religion. And, I've never been the strongest Christian. But, today, she challenged my beliefs, and I clenched onto them tightly. However, she became frustrated, because I was being so stubborn and not even- willing to think. I wouldn't even provide her an answer for why- why I believe in this God, and why I'm not agnostic, or why I don't believe in the watchsetter God, who set the world to motion and walked away. I know- what I think. I believe in God. But- is it possible to have an open mind, but still believe. Do you have any advice for how I can work on my- why? Understand why I do?

1 Peter 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

As a whole, we need to be doing a better job of preparing people to follow this verse. We should be investigating and teaching about the veracity of our beliefs precisely so that Christians are prepared to handle situations like this. We don't want to get sick, but our immune systems are stronger because they are constantly fighting things off, whereas someone who lived only in a sterile environment would have a much weaker immune system. In the same way, we have a natural tendency to want to protect people from dealing with things that challenge their faith, but that only undermines their ability to resist challenges when they inevitably arise.

There are many scholarly books written about the veracity of Christianity that you can find at a library or bookstore, as well as useful websites on apologetics. One I'd highly recommend that is currently on sale for Kindle for $2.51 at amazon.com is The Case for the Resurrection of Jesusby Gary Habermas and Mike Licona. Probably the most comprehensive book on Miracles is Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts by Craig Keener. C.S. Lewis also has some really good books that are available online. I'd highly recommend Mere Christianity if you haven't read that:

https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf

There are also some great doodle videos of his work on youtube:

 

[dhh712]

I don't like this business of being "open-minded." Non-believers tend to use the term in a rather lopsided and inappropriate way. What they often really mean is that being a Christian, a theist, is close-minded and thus unreasonable and being agnostic or atheistic is open-minded and thus sensible and rational. Basically, throwing around the criticism of being close-minded is often just a rhetorical maneuver by non-believers to cast the theist in an irrational light. The reality, however, is that no one is ever truly and completely open-minded. Your friend, for instance, is not open-minded about your faith. I'm sure your friend is not open-minded about 2+2=4, either. I doubt your friend thinks 2+2=7, or 28, or 315, or any other number. Isn't this being close-minded, though? Yes, it is, but truth often requires such exclusivity. If the ball is completely black, it cannot also be white, or pink, or any other color at the same time. If the animal is a dog, it can't also be a cat, or a fish, or any other species of animal. And so on. This sort of close-mindedness is not bad, however; it is not irrational. Quite the opposite. Your commitment to your faith, then, is not necessarily close-minded in an unreasonable way.

I don't like it either--isn't wonderful that the propaganda out there has gotten about this idea that open-mindedness is positive and close-mindedness is negative? [at least that's my impression of it--and non-believers say that Christians are brain-washed(??)]. Goes along with the whole "tolerance" campaign it seems. My fiance has a great comment to those who start talking about the need to have an "open-mind": "The problem with being open-minded is that eventually your mind becomes so open that your brain falls out".

 

[aiki]

Hah! Quite. I've met a few open-minded people whose brains seem to have done just that!

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm talking about empirical evidence, as in experiments that can be repeated which prove the existence of the Biblical God (I may not have the right term for it, it's been a little while since I've been out of pharmacy school and studied these things). They don't exist, or else we can rest our belief on these things instead of faith. There are all kinds of evidence, but most for the belief in the Biblical God are going to be subjective. Creation itself is subjective evidence. Sure it points to a creator, but what repeatable experiment is going to show that or more specifically if it can show the existence of a creator, it will in no way show the existence of the Christian God as he is revealed in his word. Intelligent design is evidence, but there again are no experiments that will point to evidence of the Christian God. God has made it very clear in this world that he is revealed, not something that man can attain to by exercises of his own intelligence.

Hi there; Hebrews 11 says: 'By faith we believe that the worlds were framed'.

 

[Look Up]

I'm talking about empirical evidence, as in experiments that can be repeated which prove the existence of the Biblical God (I may not have the right term for it, it's been a little while since I've been out of pharmacy school and studied these things). They don't exist, or else we can rest our belief on these things instead of faith. There are all kinds of evidence, but most for the belief in the Biblical God are going to be subjective. Creation itself is subjective evidence. Sure it points to a creator, but what repeatable experiment is going to show that or more specifically if it can show the existence of a creator, it will in no way show the existence of the Christian God as he is revealed in his word. Intelligent design is evidence, but there again are no experiments that will point to evidence of the Christian God. God has made it very clear in this world that he is revealed, not something that man can attain to by exercises of his own intelligence.

I think we are already more or less on the same page wrt your first sentence, above (before the parenthetical aside) whatever clarification is needed on details--and also on the same page wrt your last above sentence.

What I am still curious about is how you relate Rom. 1:19-20 and my above remarks on the chapter to empirical and scientific evidence that suggests or demonstrates something about God in Rom. 1 terms. You say, "Creation itself is subjective evidence. Sure it points to a creator," but my understanding of "subjective" is that it is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" (to cite Google), which is epistemologically insubstantial and could not be considered adequate to explain Rom. 1 "they know" and judgment language. Granted I am trying to clarify my own thought here, but would not "objective" better describe the knowledge people in Rom. 1 have of aspects of God's nature such as His power and--how does one put it?--transcendent stature (and apparently wrath)? Or should we abandon (as I currently favor) attaching "subjective" and "objective" language to the knowledge of God Paul describes in Rom. 1?

You mention "God has made it very clear in this world that he is revealed" (which I think adequately represents some of Paul's words in Rom. 1). Your post then seems to suggest you would affirm there is empirical evidence for intelligent design (which in any case I would affirm). And you seem uncertain that repeatable experiments could be imagined and executed which would suggest, instantiate, or demonstrate the existence of "a creator" (or God who could be known universally only in Rom. 1 terms)--we both would abandon the possibility of designing an experiment to substantiate the existence of the Trinity or God with post-Chalcedon attributes; knowledge of that God has been derived elsewhere, as you perhaps imply.

Of course the problem with executing experiments concerning the origin of matter or life is human and technological and energy limitations. Recreate the Big Bang (or fill-in view of the origins of mass/energy). Create a bacteria cell starting by using amino acid soup, temperature variations, a few assorted chemicals, and electricity. In this respect I mean, naturalistic atheists and theistic creationists are on equal epistemological footing (despite recent political success of anti-supernaturalism, e.g. at Dover). There are subjects for experimentation which we cannot experiment on, especially when it comes to origins and, in our case, regarding a Creator.

But apparently we both wonder if there are no experiments which can be done which in some way or to some degree suggests, instantiates, or demonstrates the existence of some attribute of God. Or perhaps many such experiments have already been done. One may consider double blind studies on prayer and healing, which suggest the presence of a power(s?) we may not fully understand (and which does not fit conventional western naturalistic models of the mass-energy universe), but I am thinking more in terms of implications, such as failures in mutation studies to encourage belief in such macroevolutionary leaps as the origins of mammal or bird eyes with visual cortexes to process the "pixels." I say leaps without substantial extra-probability nudges in design despite naturalist faith that becomes a kind of infinite regression into "we don't know mechanisms yet, but we believe we will."

And here I'm rapidly going too far afield, being too terse and incomplete, and running out of time. Nonetheless, I do hope our conversation benefits heartsrose74 per her OP, at least indirectly (not to mention the two of us). Belief in a Creator God is intellectually viable for those who care to look into it.