There seems to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes an open mind. Theists claim atheists aren’t open minded because we won’t accept the premise that gods exist. Conspiracy believers accuse the skeptical of being closed minded when they question the conspiracy stories. People who don’t believe in Big Foot or Nessy are called closed minded.
Being open minded does not require us to automatically accept every thought that enters our head, believe every notion floated by anyone, accept the possibility of even the most outlandish idea.
To be open minded is to be willing to be convinced. It’s to be willing to set aside preconceived notions in the face of factual evidence to the contrary. Being open minded means that a person is willing to change their mind when presented with an adequate reason to do so.
The evidence or argument that will sway an open minded person has to meet certain qualifications, though. It obviously needs to be convincing and irrefutable. It needs to be logical and consistent with the reality we know. It must be practical, sensible, possible and rational.
To be closed minded is to presume an unfounded assumption and cling desperately to it even when provided sufficiently contrary evidence.
If you expect me to believe in gods or Big Foot based on your word or any other subjective opinion, I’m not being closed minded in refusing to do so. I’m remaining open minded about the concept until adequate evidence is provided. I’m more than willing to be convinced, but the evidence required to convince me has to be convincing. The onus is on all those who want me to believe as they do to provide a reason for me to believe, and evidence sufficient to convince me.
Some will contend that agnosticism is the ultimate open mindedness. That’s not true. Huxley proposed agnosticism as a means to question perceptions, not as a position to maintain.
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him. (Agnosticism,” 1889)
It does not imply that the most honest position to take is no position. It means that you accept that for which, at this moment, you have sufficient evidence, while being willing to amend your position should convincing evidence contrary to yours appear.
I’m not an agnostic, I’m an atheist. No theist, no believer in any god or gods, has provided sufficient evidence to convince me that their notions about gods are true. I don’t believe in Big Foot or Nessy, but just like gods, I’m willing to be convinced. Provide irrefutable evidence to support the idea that these creatures are real and I’ll accept that. I’m not set against the idea of gods or the Loch Ness Monster. I just see no reason to believe in them based on the current state of evidence put forth in their defense.
Sunday, April 6th, 2008, 4:40 pm | 
Free Thought, Philosophy | 
RSS feed
| 
Respond | 
Trackback
12 August 2009 at 2:39 am
I have been trying to explain this way of thinking to my friends and have had them just not understand how I think. This is well written, gets to the point, and is very very true.
18 July 2008 at 11:40 am
Enough talk about what is true and what is not true, the only way to prove the existence of a God or that of other gods is to have them appear and dispel the doubts of unbelievers. Simply put, put your God or gods where your mouth is — “seeing is believing.”
18 July 2008 at 8:40 am
Enough talk about what is true and what is not true, the only way to prove the existence of a God or that of other gods is to have them appear and dispel the doubts of unbelievers. Simply put, put your God or gods where your mouth is — “seeing is believing.”
24 June 2008 at 9:31 am
I'd really like to hear a response to this. I think Loui raises a good point and although I disagree, I don't feel it's my place to speak for Jack.
8 June 2008 at 6:46 pm
Being rather new to this idea of “no theos”, please forgive me if I ask questions that have been unquestionably accepted by rational thinkers, or well enough documented in this or other blogs. You, I think would agree that public opinion is among the least of the proofs. You've said as much in refusing, as we all should do, to accept opinion or another's word as complete, or whole evidence. So I thank you for the freedom to consider your opinion here as same weight as Billy Nascar, St. Augustine or a midlevel potato farmer. I'm happy to say, we all of us dead or alive, have produced moments of brilliance.
Am I right to draw from this post, that open mindedness is an important value to which I, as an atheist must cling? You have several themes running through, but it might me help to stick to only one, for “I am a bear of very little brain.”
Tell me if I have the gist of your view right: An open mind is a desirable thing. A closed mind to be avoided. So far, so good. I'm strongly considering atheism already, open-mindedness is the only way to fly if we're to give and take, fully, in these short years incorpus.
Thank you again, for leading us by your example. I think I can trust you to give me the best atheism has to offer. So, by your post, a good atheist “should” agree that evidence must live up to several criteria, some pretty strict boundaries. Can you help me here? I was just about to join you, valuing open-mindedness as much as you do. But, these words seem a bit restrictive. Here they are again:
“convincing” “irrefutable” “logical” “consistent with the reality we know” “practical” “sensible” “possible” “rational”
I'm trying for as much common ground as I can get here. Let's imagine that a religious mystic describes his faith. You'll require “convincing, irrefutable logic”. But when he starts, we atheists will have a problem with reality we all, including him, “know”. His faith is “practical” to him and he would say “sensible” or why would he bet his lifestyle upon it. But if you're not convinced of his “proofs” because they don't meet your very specific “rationality”, I'm afraid I might hear you declare “Impossible!!!”
So as one who is in total agreement with you on the importance of remaining open, my question is simply, “Is not this atheism, both narrow, and closed?” After all… your mission, if you'll allow, is wonderfully described in a single word. I wish I had a single word mission. That word: Atheist. “No Theism” as you say. Sounds a bit more rigid than you originally promoted above.
I greatly desire peer respect, in the end. After all, we both have our moments of brilliance. I fear we're starting off on the wrong foot. Could you clarify this one, what looks to me to be, blind spot? In this one post you've alienated those who can't meet your subjective, albeit narrow rules, and have devalued our beloved openness by your title which says “I'm closed to theism”. If it were on a business card, I'd know your name and that you value closedness. Maybe we're expecting too much of an open mind. In that case let's search for some other common ground, something we can agree is valuable (even though To Value requires a faith in yet another thing we can't quite prove…)
Thanks in advance for your gentle response, I am but a potential disciple, with a deep lack of experience in such an obvious (as you put it) need for exclusively rational thinking.
All the best,
8 June 2008 at 12:51 pm
pumpapa, you say, “Many findings in science were considered to be impracticle, insensible, impossible, and irrational.” That may be true, but I suggest it may be influenced by the notion people had in the past that no new thing would ever be invented, that humans knew everything that was knowable. If science had no answer, religion did, and there wasn't much of anywhere to go past that.
We are only beginning to realize how weird and complex nature is. We now understand that our knowledge of nature and reality is very incomplete, that we have much to learn. We've learned to hesitate and qualify before proclaiming something is impossible.
Yet those who suppose a supernatural state leave us with nothing to examine, no way to learn about this realm. We are given a lot of information about it, none of it based on observation or evidence. Speculation is wonderful. It's lead to many unimagined discoveries. But speculation has to move beyond the imagination to reap any real benefit from it. The supernatural, gods, the soul, none have moved past the point of being speculation.
All I ask is for those who want me to accept their contentions about the supernatural to provide convincing evidence, arguments or persuasive logic. Thus far they have not been able to do that. Belief without reason is shallow and not something I want to have to rely on in life.
8 June 2008 at 11:28 am
Oh wow, I have been trying to explain this way of thinking to my friends and have had them just not understand how I think. This is well written, gets to the point, and is very very true. Thanks for explaining the ideas that I hold in such an excellent manner.
8 June 2008 at 10:31 am
Hm. You say “It obviously needs to be convincing and irrefutable. It needs to be logical and consistent with the reality we know. It must be practical, sensible, possible and rational.”
Many findings in science were considered to be impracticle, insensible, impossible, and irrational. To mention one, the fact that an electron can pass through two slits and interfere with itself, until we detect through which slit it travels.
Some people claim to be open-minded whereas in fact there is no reasonable argument that would convince them. Prejudice exists with enlightened people. Cheers though.
8 June 2008 at 10:03 am
Rather irritating that the word agnostic has ceased to refer to that excellent philosophy and has been appropriated by “weak atheists” (those that do not actively believe there is a god, as opposed to so-called “strong atheists” who are sure there isn't) in an apparent effort to not offend the religious. Although to be fair “weak atheist” is not the most flattering label in the world, I suppose it makes sense they want to call themselves something else.
Trackbacks
11 June 2010 at 11:36 pm
21 June 2008 at 8:43 pm