Are Christians Closed-Minded?

[rookiebatman]

I was raised in a Christian family, and I was a committed Christian for all of my young life, as was my older brother (he still is). One day when I was in high school, I was reading something about Christianity that troubled me, so I walked into my brother's room and asked him if we, as Christians, were (or should be) closed-minded. He thought about it for a moment and said, "yes."

If you are a Christian, do you believe (without any positive or negative value judgment for the moment) that you are closed-minded?

Jesus said, "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed." As a mirror-image to my other thread about whether skepticism is a sin, do you believe that being closed to other possibilities (other than God existing and Jesus being his risen son) is virtuous?

If you are a former Christian, do you believe that you were closed-minded while you were a Christian, and if so, do you believe that your leaving the church was a direct result of you becoming open-minded?

[squint]

I was raised in a Christian family, and I was a committed Christian for all of my young life, as was my older brother (he still is). One day when I was in high school, I was reading something about Christianity that troubled me, so I walked into my brother's room and asked him if we, as Christians, were (or should be) closed-minded. He thought about it for a moment and said, "yes."

If you are a Christian, do you believe (without any positive or negative value judgment for the moment) that you are closed-minded?

Speaking as a christian, there is no such animal. There are many brands of christianity. All christians in group form are branded christians. So there is only plurality, in the extreme each being their own particular brand. ChristianS with an S extension emphasis. No 2 christians actually being identical. Only generally congealed.

In other words every christian and even every person is ultimately their own subjective brand. If one is honest they are only honest to their own reality which is their own individually subjective brand, each their own respective internal universe, believer or not.

As a 'former christian' in the congealed sense, it became impossible for me to isolate myself from the subjective universe's of other people. It's not a productive/profitable mindset. Such merely close themselves off from the reality of other subjective realities. It is only in the collective of all that there is gain.

Endless individual subjectivity is an interesting carry forward to contemplate.

Jesus said, "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed." As a mirror-image to my other thread about whether skepticism is a sin, do you believe that being closed to other possibilities (other than God existing and Jesus being his risen son) is virtuous?

The logical extensions of thought forms from our perspectives may extend from no thought to every thought, and all the respective individual subjectivity between the extremes.

If you are a former Christian, do you believe that you were closed-minded while you were a Christian, and if so, do you believe that your leaving the church was a direct result of you becoming open-minded?

Very much closed minded. I couldn't live my life that way. It was merely a mind trap of the lesser reflections of others or even of my own. Extension and encompassing the reality of others is much more pleasing to engage in.

That being said, I think most people understand and naturally resist being trapped or enslaved. Closed mindedness is a requirement for longer term survival. It's also the way we are internally built. Our conscious mind 'funnels down' sensory inputs so we can function and filters the larger and somewhat entirely random data sets within the subconscious.

When anyone steps out of their subjective boxes, it is generally pleasing to contemplate even if that doesn't include God or Christ. And even contemplating or believing in God doesn't hinder that contemplation. It is rather pointless to put the matter of God or His Christ into a subjective box of our own design, which is what most of christianity consists of. If we back away from the subjective, enlarge it, and contemplate God as ever larger and encompassing beyond all things, there is no harm, no foul for our internals. Only expansion.

I lean to view God as an undefined and undefinable Objective Reality and all other things as subjectively but perhaps endlessly finite. From the subjective views, I may observe that which is beyond the subjective views and say there is nothing there or that there is everything there. Very much like looking up into the night sky. We see a lot of subjectivity there hung in the endless objectivity of endless black nothing. I may observe that all as an expression of the Creator or I may view the Creator as the nothing of endless blackness. The Eternal Unbound by any 'thing.'

It's a very pleasing sight to my internals. And a similar but inverse internal sight is also there for me, subjectively held within my own little subjectively closed to all others universe. God has no harm for me in any of it.

I do find it interesting to contemplate how the Objectivity of God expressed Himself into the subjectivity of creation. And I think that other religions to some extent try to capture that similar contemplation and define it subjectively.

Ultimately though all of our views are held in close subjectivity by our respective natures. Any engagements with the larger picture tends to dissemination of our subjectivity. Most of christianity insists that other individual subjects must bow to their subjective construct of The Objective Unbound, which is just them talking out of their ass hats. It's nothing more than another form of slavery.

I prefer to look into the night sky in wonder.

[rookiebatman]

So the right racist argument and you would be open to it?

I agree with Zzyzx to an extent, but I also think there needs to be a strong differentiation between arguments about whether something is moral, and arguments about whether something exists. To me, it's the difference between practical and logical reasoning. Practical reasoning is sufficient to decide whether a moral stance should be held or not, but no amount of practical reasons to believe in something can make that thing be factually true. So, while I could say I'd be open to hearing someone's practical reasoning in favor of racism, I think we can all pretty well see the practical reasoning against racism for ourselves. In other words, you couldn't ever argue that racism doesn't hurt anyone; the only thing you could rationally argue is that racism hurting people doesn't matter, and that's a premise that I would have to disagree with on the face it.

But with belief in God or Christianity, you're dealing more in the realm of logical reasoning (if the case is in favor of God really existing, and not just belief in God being helpful whether he exists or not), so there's a much greater likelihood that someone else can add more of value to the discussion that is not self-evident to everyone. You or I might have what we consider to be overwhelming evidence (either for or against, as the case may be), but there's always a possibility that someone else might come along and give us a new perspective on that evidence that makes us see it in a new light (I don't know about anyone else, but I like to think that's the reason I'm here). I think the possibility of people shedding new light on the logical reasons for or against belief in God is much more likely than somebody posing a practical argument for racism that surpasses the clearly-observable fact that racism hurts people.

Therefore, I think that comparing racism to belief in Christianity is a false comparison.

[ttruscott]

...

It doesn't mean I'd just except their evidence out of hand, without credulity, but I like to think I'd be open-minded and receptive if they came to me with anything more than simple dogma.

Can you prove you are open minded please, and seriously concerned about the Christian communities open mindedness and not just trying to shame people into listening to your podcasts?

An open mind is one of those bait and switch phrases. The bait is that you should look at the facts and only then draw a conclusion.

The switch is that you should never come to a conclusion.

Should I (generic pronoun) be scorned for having done my due diligence and made up my mind on the evidence 40 years ago on and do not care what arguments someone presents that I discounted already?

Since when has a convicted belief become suspect as a moral liability? If a presenter lays out their argument and I peruse it and discount it, is not the charge or implication of closed mindedness an ad hominem attack?

peace, Ted

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 7 by Wootah]

What's an issue that you are closed minded about?

Over-rated actors IE Leonardo DiCaprio - not a great actor and dog-butt ugly. I don't get the 'greatness' of him and I don't, won't, will NEVER like him as a person or actor.

Should racism be defeated?

Should? Maybe. Will? Nope

Are you open minded towards racism?

Yes - most everyone (if not everyone) is racist to some degree. I am. I admit it. And while sometimes my racism isn't 'right' sometimes it's dead on.

[rookiebatman]

Can you prove you are open minded please, and seriously concerned about the Christian communities open mindedness and not just trying to shame people into listening to your podcasts?

Do you even know what my podcast is about, what the format is? If you did, you would have no reason to ask such a loaded and clearly off-topic question, because you would know that the podcast consists of an even-handed discussion between two people with opposing viewpoints (generally one atheist and one Christian) and does not just consist of me monolithically "shaming people" or telling them how wrong they are.

Furthermore, I'm quite honestly not interested in garnering listeners for it, because I currently only have four good episodes, which are not posted with any kind of sharp presentation. If you bothered to actually investigate your own claim by clicking on the link in my sig, you'd see that the first posting on that blog page is an announcement that I am looking for co-hosts, not listeners (which is also clearly stated in the sig itself). I am looking for co-hosts because I want to be exposed to opposing viewpoints and differing perspectives, and I want my conclusions to be challenged, because I'm open-minded. You would know this if you clicked on the link to investigate your own claim, because it explains why I want co-hosts who disagree with me in another post on the same page.

But then, I guess once people (generic noun) dogmatically accept something, they don't feel like they need to investigate those assumptions.

An open mind is one of those bait and switch phrases. The bait is that you should look at the facts and only then draw a conclusion.

The switch is that you should never come to a conclusion.

I think this is a misrepresentation of what open-minded means (it's certainly not an accurate representation of how I mean it). When I say "open-minded," what I mean is that after you have drawn a conclusion (whether you looked at the facts before drawing it honestly doesn't even matter), that you still allow for the possibility that an alternate conclusion may be more consistent with reality than the one you reached.

Should I (generic pronoun) be scorned for having done my due diligence and made up my mind on the evidence 40 years ago on and do not care what arguments someone presents that I discounted already?

First of all, I don't think I was scorning you. You can see right there in the second line of the thread subject (as well as in the original post) that the question of whether closed-mindedness is good or bad is left open for discussion. If you think it's good, then that's a valid position provided you can offer support for it.

But as for your statement that you made up your mind 40 years ago and don't care what other evidence anyone else presents, are you asserting that you reached a complete maximum saturation point of knowledge and experience 40 years ago? If not, what made you decide that any further knowledge or experience couldn't be valid in ever redrawing or reassessing your conclusions? Haven't you changed your mind about other things in that 40 year period?

Since when has a convicted belief become suspect as a moral liability? If a presenter lays out their argument and I peruse it and discount it, is not the charge or implication of closed mindedness an ad hominem attack?

It's only an ad hominem attack if it's stated to be inherently negative, which it has not been. If you believe it's positive, make your case instead of assuming that it must be negative and getting upset about it. I left plenty of opening in the original premise of the thread for honest discuss of whether it was a good or bad quality.

[Danmark]

I think it a bit unfair to ask if a Christian is "close minded." The term is too broad and has a pejorative connotation. Altho' I personally think of true faith as the suspension of disbelief; that a healthy faith should always be open to some degree, at some point everyone becomes 'closed minded' in a practical sense. This is probably true even with scientists.

Even tho' they should always be open to new ideas and new discoveries, it would be a giant waste of time to completely disregard the mountain of evidence that has, for example, resulted in 99.85 percent of scientists in the life and Earth sciences believing evolution is a fact.

In other words, I think a Christian has a right to take a stand about his faith without being called 'closed minded,' as long as he remains open to new information to a degree, however limited that openness may be.

[Willum]

Easy one:

Can you get a Christian to change their mind? About any portion of their belief, no matter how tiny. If yes, then they admit their might be something they now know or didn't know about this god they are not supposed to be able to conceive of.

On the other hand, there is the statement by House:

"If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't BE any religious people."

Face it, unless you were born needing a god, you have no reason to suspect there is one. What does a god explain that not having one does?

Creation? Why is that any more special than a nuclear reaction? Because you weren't there? Please. Evil? Seems to me he created that, doesn't exactly exist without him. On and on. Myths about god empowering things like Sampson to go murder people for no adequately explained reason, or murder Egyptians for no adequately explained reason, except he hardened their leaders heart.

It creates more problems then it explains. Which is pretty much the definition of a lie...

[rookiebatman]

I think it a bit unfair to ask if a Christian is "close minded." The term is too broad and has a pejorative connotation.

That's why I offered the story about my brother. Even though he certainly isn't representative of every Christian out there, that is at least one example of a person who believed that being closed-minded was a good thing, something to be proud of (but I may not have made that clear enough).

Altho' I personally think of true faith as the suspension of disbelief; that a healthy faith should always be open to some degree, at some point everyone becomes 'closed minded' in a practical sense. This is probably true even with scientists.

Even tho' they should always be open to new ideas and new discoveries, it would be a giant waste of time to completely disregard the mountain of evidence that has, for example, resulted in 99.85 percent of scientists in the life and Earth sciences believing evolution is a fact.

Careful about that; somebody could quote-mine and remove the context so that it looks like you're validating their claim that evolution is just a matter of dogmatic faith. What I think might be a similar idea less open to contrary interpretation is that, if a scientist is presented with evidence against evolution, he could be open-minded to it, but it still wouldn't immediately wipe away the mountain of evidence in favor of evolution.

If a Christian believes that they are open to the possibility that God does not exist, but also believes that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God's existence, then that's a very different story than a Christian who simply refuses to give any further consideration to the possibility that God does not exist. (Notice the lack of judgment about which one of those is better or worse; the only point is that they are very different stances.)

In other words, I think a Christian has a right to take a stand about his faith without being called 'closed minded,' as long as he remains open to new information to a degree, however limited that openness may be.

I agree. I don't think taking a stand about your faith makes you closed-minded; I think if that person, as you suggest, "remains open to new information," then that is open-minded, no matter how zealously they may take a stand.

[Danmark]

Easy one:

Can you get a Christian to change their mind? About any portion of their belief, no matter how tiny. If yes, then they admit their might be something they now know or didn't know about this god they are not supposed to be able to conceive of.

Do you believe your question applies equally to atheists?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 12 by rookiebatman]

Do you think people with open or closed minds are more susceptible to scams?

I think the thread is an unintentional ad hominem. If you had said in a random post that Christians are close minded it would get reported and dealt with.

So all I have to demonstrate is that being closed minded is OK on some things and if others wish to open their minds to ideas like that the nazis were right well the forum serves to illuminate.

I'll move on soon. My point is made.