FreThink

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.