I guess this has gone for a while in this thread so grunching here, but in my view "open mindedness" is a sort of meta or dispositional state, and not dependent upon ones claimed view. Earlier in the thread someone was talking about compatibilism vs noncompatibilism on the free will and determinism question and I made the point that the content of the claim - being a compatibilist - did not make one more open minded. One can take very strong and certain claims and be open minded. What one needs is the disposition to be willing to modify ones views given sufficient changing evidence.

As in the YEC is not more closed minded than the weak atheist on the substance of their belief in YEC alone. If they show a stubbornness to evidence contradicting YEC then they are closed minded but it is because of their stubbornness not their YECism that is the problem.

They could. When did I say they couldn't?

Do you think people would take exception to you classifying them as closed-minded simply on the basis of a particular belief they hold? Notice how in this conversation you've been attacking a conclusion and not a process. Do you not see the distinction?

I stand by my claim that you're patting yourself on the back. My evidence is that you've been using language that essential does this through comparing yourself to someone else's approach to belief and saying "I'm better than that."

Except that's not what you're saying at all. I can be 100% certain of something while being open-minded about it. I can be completely convinced (100% certain) that I'm going to hit my 1-outer. (Whether that level of confidence is justified is another matter.) And when it doesn't come, I can be open-minded and admit that my 1-outer didn't come in. The ability to change positions on the basis of new evidence has nothing to do with being certain of things.

And I'm saying that you're just patting yourself on the back again. You're also repeating the fundamental mischaracterization problem, which is a long way for me to say that you're creating a strawman. That you can't even seem to imagine that a theist could rely on evidence says more about what you believe than what theists believe.

If you were part of a computer simulation, you would still exist. Maybe you won't exist in quite the form you believe (as not part of a computer simulation) but you would be able to argue yourself back into believing in your own existence. But this is all a side track.

Let's just say that your rejection of (1) seems absolutely absurd to me, and is the sort of move I would expect you to make if you only considered your position at a superficial level. I challenge you to create some form of a rationale that would lead you to conclude that you didn't actually exist in some form if you were part of a computer program. Good luck.

*Yawn*

This is irrelevant.

I'm not calling anyone closed minded for a belief they hold. I'm calling them closed minded for their unwillingness to change their belief when presented with evidence to the contrary.

Except that I'm not.

I've only even mentioned myself after being asked, such as: Originally Posted by uke_master: "Do you similarly lack the belief that Yeti doesn't exist"? [/quote]

Please explain how that wouldn't be completely illogical. Even if you knew the deck was down to the last card, there's always the possibility it's a bad deck. You're a mathematician for crying out loud! How on earth can you think 100% certainty would be warranted here?

So your argument only holds true by requiring an illogical premise to start with? How do I counter that? I guess you win?

Present this evidence for the existence of a god. Not only can you convince me, but there should be some kind of Nobel prize in it for you. You can kill two birds with one stone here!

It always gets down to the nittiest of semantics with you, doesn't it? Are you honestly representing that Buzz Light Year from Toy Story really exists? How about Dwayne Forge of Grand Theft Auto?

Perhaps they have not been exposed to evidence to the contrary. There are plenty of people out there with such beliefs in such a position. They are ignorant. That doesn't make them closed-minded. So I remain with my assertion that you're calling them closed-minded for their beliefs and not for their disposition to evidence.

You also act as if predisposition towards interpretation of evidence plays no role in the interpretation of evidence.

The evidence continues to suggest otherwise.

It matters exactly zero when you started comparing yourself to others. The point is you've started down that path and have continued using yourself as the point of comparison.

I never claimed it was warranted. Your failure to pay attention to details here reflects a larger lack of attention to detail. The whole matter of logical/illogical has nothing to do with open-minded/closed-minded. Are you at least willing to assent that this is an error that you're making?

It's not about win/lose. You've made the claim now that you would be as surprised to find out God existed as if you did not exist. I've challenged you to make that claim meaningful.

I can make the claim that the evidence for God is everywhere. I can claim that it's embedded in the surreal nature of mathematics to extend truth across both time and culture, even when the cultures are completely non-intersecting. I can claim that evidence for God can be found in the longing of humans for "good" and that evidence for the devil can be found in the human disposition for "evil." I can claim that God's logical nature is evidenced by the success of logical structures against illogical ones.

All of this comes down to the interpretation of evidence, which is something that you have consistently (to the best of my memory) never quite grasped.

But this is all a red herring. Even if God were proven in some sense, you would know there's no Nobel prize for it. (Which category of Nobel prize? Think about it...) You're clearly trying to avoid the points raised by shifting the focus. I never claimed to have sufficient evidence to prove to you that God exists. I merely claimed that you can't even conceive of how a theist would rely on evidence for his beliefs, and that this says more about you than it says about the theist.

I claim that Buzz Light Year from Toy Story exists. I don't claim that he exists as a physical object. He exists as a collection of pixels and as a character in a movie. (Incidentally, Buzz Light Year does not exist as a "simulation" -- that language suggests something very different.)

I don't think he exists in a form that has a self-aware experience. But for you to actually know that you exist as a computer program says something much more complex than you've understood. Now whether I should be surprised that you failed to understand such an idea is a very open question. All it does it point to the increasingly shallow intellectual approach you're taking.

You don't think I know this? I used to be a believer I'm not talking about these people!

Sorry. You don't get to tell me what I think. I never said the act of believing something makes a person closed minded and I don't think it.

Cite an example ITT where I compared myself to others.

Citation please.

You stated: I can be completely convinced (100% certain) that I'm going to hit my 1-outer. Why say it if it isn't warranted?

Perhaps. It seems (to me at least) that logical thinking people would be more predisposed to open mindedness and that closed mindedness is a symptom of illogical thinking. That's what really started this whole derail in the first place. If you disagree, then make a case where it is logical to be closed minded or Vise Versa.

It's fair to note that this claim didn't emanate from me. YOU made the claim that I'd be claimed that I'd be more confident in my own existence than my belief that god doesn't exist. I simply pointed out that you were wrong and that I'd be just as shocked at both relevations.

I have gone on record as saying the bible is evidence and that hearsay is also evidence. Not good evidence, but evidence nonetheless. I was mainly referring to creationists and those that believe the Noah's Ark story and even evolution deniers.

And yes... To a lesser degree all theists. You can't be surprised that I find belief in a god to be illogical and that evidence so far points to a universe that doesn't contain a personal god. If I didn't, I'd still be a theist, wouldn't I?

You have used a blanket statement about a person's belief and used that to draw a conclusion about the method of belief. You have consistently used a specific belief as the proxy for for some sort of predisposition for belief or non-belief.

Right here:

"Show ME something, and compare me to the creationist."

Also, notice that you're comparing something to the "creationist's position" and not the creationist's means of reaching a conclusion. This is clearly you doing what I've claimed you're doing, which is using someone's BELIEF to draw a conclusion about their closed-mindedness.

The thing above is a continuation of a conversation that started here:


You've created an "us vs. them" comparison with this post, and you continued it moving forward, narrowing the focus (as described above) to comparing yourself to others.

I had a good feeling about it. People have confidence in beliefs that are ultimately unwarranted. I'm merely posing this as an example of how this happens. My claim as stated is true. Someone can be completely convinced of something that's false. They can hold unwarranted beliefs with high levels of confidence. This is not controversial.

There are people who are absolutely convinced of determinism. There are people who are absolutely convinced of the existence of free will. Both can make logical cases. Both can be closed-minded to the possibility that they are wrong.

You're using completely incorrect categories of thought for this conversation. You've mixed beliefs with reasons for belief above, and now you're mixing logic with open-mindedness. That doesn't work.

Read the bolded, then read the underlined. What is the difference between the two?

Again, you're making claims about someone's beliefs and using that to talk about how they reached their beliefs. You've listed three beliefs. You have not listed anything about how they reached their beliefs.

I'm not surprised. But my level of surprise has nothing to do with anything. What matters is whether you've actually taken a logical path to your conclusion. So far, you haven't done much to show that you're actually being logical. You're asserting that you are, but you're not showing it.