Empiricism has support in the arena of Science, true. But in Philosophy it is still in the proving stages.
The concept of "open minded"
- Thread starter mrhnau
- Start date
Empiricism has support in the arena of Science, true. But in Philosophy it is still in the proving stages.
I'm having difficulty (for once) expressing my thoughts on this.
I do dislike those who are closed minded but am having difficulty in expressing what I mean by that.
I like to think that I'm open minded. I can accept the concept of religion and atheism together or separately. I can accept the concept of creation and evolution, I can accept the concept of mix marriages, I can accept the fact of crimes and wars and disease. I can even accept the concept of high gas prices, accept the concept of vegetarianism and meat eaters, gay and straight and a host of other things... but with all of them... I can either agree or disagree with the ideas depending upon what they are.
I hold a personal opinion on each of those (and other) things and they're my own. If they don't jive with yours it doesn't mean that I'm closed minded. Agreeing or disagreeing with an idea/opinion is the same as saying like/dislike. I like green peas but don't like broccoli. Am I being closed minded about broccoli? No, it's a vegetable that some people eat and some don't. I'm one of those who don't. Is that being closed minded? No of course not.
Same with capital punishment. I am open to the idea of it. It's there and it exists. Some folks don't agree with it, are they being closed minded because I happen to agree with it (in certain circumstances)?? I don't think so.
Closed minded would be someone saying there is no capital punishment, when in fact there is.
Closed minded is the refusal to the facts, period.
Example of that I think would be a Christian's refusal to accept an atheist's belief that there is no God. A Christian may stoutly believe that there is a God but they cannot be "open minded" if they refuse to accept the atheist's stand that there isn't.
You can hear a difference of opinion and still maintain your own.
My oldest brother and I got in to a argument about the beliefs/doctrine about the LDS church. Was he being closed minded... not in my opinion, he just disagreed with the beliefs.
I think people just get bent out of shape because there's someone out there who doesn't think they're right. It's an ego thing. They're so sure of themselves and their beliefs about a subject that there cannot possibly be any other answers. That to me is being closed minded.
To me that's petting the sweaty stuff.
I do dislike those who are closed minded but am having difficulty in expressing what I mean by that.
I like to think that I'm open minded. I can accept the concept of religion and atheism together or separately. I can accept the concept of creation and evolution, I can accept the concept of mix marriages, I can accept the fact of crimes and wars and disease. I can even accept the concept of high gas prices, accept the concept of vegetarianism and meat eaters, gay and straight and a host of other things... but with all of them... I can either agree or disagree with the ideas depending upon what they are.
I hold a personal opinion on each of those (and other) things and they're my own. If they don't jive with yours it doesn't mean that I'm closed minded. Agreeing or disagreeing with an idea/opinion is the same as saying like/dislike. I like green peas but don't like broccoli. Am I being closed minded about broccoli? No, it's a vegetable that some people eat and some don't. I'm one of those who don't. Is that being closed minded? No of course not.
Same with capital punishment. I am open to the idea of it. It's there and it exists. Some folks don't agree with it, are they being closed minded because I happen to agree with it (in certain circumstances)?? I don't think so.
Closed minded would be someone saying there is no capital punishment, when in fact there is.
Closed minded is the refusal to the facts, period.
Example of that I think would be a Christian's refusal to accept an atheist's belief that there is no God. A Christian may stoutly believe that there is a God but they cannot be "open minded" if they refuse to accept the atheist's stand that there isn't.
You can hear a difference of opinion and still maintain your own.
My oldest brother and I got in to a argument about the beliefs/doctrine about the LDS church. Was he being closed minded... not in my opinion, he just disagreed with the beliefs.
I think people just get bent out of shape because there's someone out there who doesn't think they're right. It's an ego thing. They're so sure of themselves and their beliefs about a subject that there cannot possibly be any other answers. That to me is being closed minded.
To me that's petting the sweaty stuff.
CuongNhuka
Senior Master
Agnosticism is believe that no one can really know if there is a God or not (or what He/She/It wants), but they're pretty sure there is a God. Atheism is the complete disbelief in the existence of God.
That can take either slant, Nhuka. I'm agnostic and I'm pretty sure there isn't a God to pull our asses out of the fires of our own idiocy.
Agnostic means "Case Unproven". If the Bearded-One comes down, smites all the Evil-Doers and declares "I am your Lord" I'll be quite convinced there is a powerful Being after all ... who still has no right to enforce his will on his creation ... or is that fuel for another discourse?
.
Agnostic means "Case Unproven". If the Bearded-One comes down, smites all the Evil-Doers and declares "I am your Lord" I'll be quite convinced there is a powerful Being after all ... who still has no right to enforce his will on his creation ... or is that fuel for another discourse?
.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Not quite. Gnosticism is knowledge of divinity. Theism is the belief in divinity. The two do not always track together. At one time I was an agnostic theist - I believed in God, but claimed no sure knowledge. Now I am an agnostic atheist - I do not believe in God, but still claim no sure knowledge.
I've also heard that referred to as "Soft Atheism." As opposed to "Hard Atheism" which claims knowledge that there is no God. Is that similar to what you are saying?
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Yep!
Animal Farm, George Orwell.
Ray
Master Black Belt
I agree with you. I don't believe that Father in Heaven enforces his will on his children.
Insofar as being open minded: when brainstorming you may hear an idea that sounds like nonsense but with a little tweaking it turns out to be a wonderful solution. As it might apply to the divergent ways we live, and philosophies we embrace I think it's okay for others to believe differently than I do so long as they don't disrupt my legal activities; and I hope that I'm not disrupting other peoples lives or causing them undo stress by my beliefs.
I accept #'s 1-3.
Thinking things through is good... however, to be truly open-minded, IMHO, means that you have to be willing to re-examine your opinion periodically. Also, like others, I have a problem with #4 - simply because something is not based on fact does not make it crap; neither is something credible simply because it is based on fact. Facts can be interpreted in a variety of ways, based on the knowledge and experiences of those who are making the interpretation.
To dismiss something as "crap", because, in your opinion and experience, it is not based on fact, is, to me, very close-minded - and excludes philosophy, some parts of higher math, and some parts of science - in each field, there are things that can only be believed; they cannot, under our current knowledge, be proven; that's why science and math are full of theorems and hypotheses - scientific concepts that have not yet been proven, as the facts are either incomplete or unobtainable using current technology. And yet, scientists believe they are true, and use them as if they are true - but still, they may or may not be true; they are currently unprovable, and thus not based on fact.
To be truly open-minded, one has to be willing to examine all ideas - and to re-examine them as new experiences bring new understanding, as new proofs are presented, as old proofs are disproven; to place an idea incontrovertibly in a category (no matter how open-minded the process that places the idea there) and never revisit it is, IMHO, ultimately as close-minded as refusing to examine it to begin with.
If I may be so bold as to interpret what he was saying:
Hypothesises (?) are concepts based on observations. They do hold a basis in fact, while they have not necessarily been proven. Even Einsteins Theory of Relativity is not proven, hence, it is still a theory. But that doesnt mean that there is no basis for it in fact.
I do not believe that #4 means that, in a strick sense, that just because it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he means that it is utter crap.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
or
I'm a lapsed agnostic, so I don't the attend the meetings hand out the literature. It also absents me from the, "Is there a god?" debate. How can I debate what I don't know. For my part, I haven't heard a worthwhiledGod exists / God does not exist argument in thirty-five years since Catholic middle school.
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
I thought about that line. Some animals may well be more equal than others, but, some ideas, Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages, honor killings, these are not equal to others.
The (Widespread and growing) belief that there are "Gray areas" is really horrible for the world. Morals matter. Claiming that horrific things are moral because a segment of society likes it that way is ludicrous, child molesters, rapists and serial killers, while not a religion or ethnicity think their behavior is hunky dory, but that certainly doesn't make it so.
CuongNhuka
Senior Master
OK, who (other then you) brought these up? We were talking about open mindedness, not honor killings. Or am I in the wrong thread?
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
Your own definition makes all ideals/points of view equal, they aren't. Some things are just wrong, regardless of how many people do them, believe them, etc.
He's right... lets keep it focused on the subject rather than get sidetrack on this or that topic.
I think open-mindedness has to include a fair amount of agnosticism. It appears that agnosticism is more of a continuum than a specific position. I could very well claim some agnosticism about my beliefs in God - while I do believe that there is one, I know little else. And, since I would ideally make my moral choices based on what I believe God would prefer, that leaves a lot of questions about specific things being "right" and "wrong."
In fact, I believe that God has purposefully hidden himself, for reasons which are more relevant for another thread, so I can't blame people for not finding proof, nor do I offer any.
Not to dive into a debate about "situational ethics" here, but when we discuss "murder" as wrong, doesn't that only differ from "killing" by the circumstances surrounding it? Being willing and able to see the different circumstances surrounding different actions and beliefs is also a part of open-mindedness. Some people hate killing in any form, and won't accept people who train to kill. They won't open their minds enough to realize that sometimes killing, although not preferred, is justifiable.
Morals matter, and they do not change, however, how those morals are applied will be different in different situations. Wisdom is in knowing when as well as what.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
OH man I tried, really I did but I just can't restrain myself here and I Am REALLY sorry about this thardey
First
As God said to Bender
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
And Last
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 or The Byrds - to Everything There Is a Season
OK I'll go now
