Test for Being Open-Minded

[Guest]

I used to have an atheist friend with whom I'd have many wonderful discussion about virtually everything.  We bonded because we found the common ground of being libertarian.

But obviously, we clashed on the topic of God.  At one point he asked me a question which, at the time, I did not understand the motive for.

"What would it take to convince you that God does not exist?"

"I believe the sun exists because I feel the warmth around me and see the light around me.  What would it take for me to deny the sun exists?"

He dropped to topic because at the time he just accepted that I was not going to be moved in my position on this.  The true purpose is that it was an "open-mindedness" test.  If you are a person who can define what it would take for you to change your mind on something, that is one sign that you are open minded.  Apparently in his mind, I failed the test.

After much consideration, I have to agree.  I am not open minded on the topic of the existence of God.  I know He exists and has had a positive hand in my life.  I know it as surely as the sun shines.  With that level, it is virtually impossible to say what it would take to sway me from that.  So, end of discussion.

But since then, I've had just a few other criteria that have come up that are "indicators" that someone is open minded.

1. Consider what it would take to change your mind.
2. Acknowledge weak points on your side of the argument.
3. Acknowledge strong points on the other side of the argument.
4. Acknowledge those areas that are indeed opinions/interpretations and not facts.
5. Acknowledge those areas where you are ignorant of the specifics or the facts/statistics.  And be thankful for someone bringing you correct facts and statistics.
6. Recognize what are real arguments rather than red herrings, dodging the issue, etc.  (most logical fallacies fall into this category).
7. Unless you really are a bonafide expert, don't try to make an appeal to authority to yourself.

Certainly not an exhaustive list.  But probably the most common things that people ignore.

I'll admit that I'm not open minded on a few things because I freely admit there's really no way to change my mind on the existence of God. Other things I'm simply highly certain of them because so far, I've never heard anyone give me a rational argument or reason to disbelieve them. 

What I see instead:

1. People don't stop to ask what it would take to change their minds because they are simply right.  So, why would I change my mind?  Well, if you're that sure, then that is a fair question.  But just how many things in life are you THAT sure about?  It seems that a LOT of politics these days are simply based on this "sure belief" on so many topics.  I have a hard time believing that anyone can have a SURE Knowledge about more than just a few topics.  Yet, you get into politics and everything is so sure that no one will change their minds.  EVER.

2&3. Instead of acknowledging weak and strong points and addressing them, people ignore them on move on to something else.

4.People state their opinion as a fact without discussion.  And if anyone tries to talk about that opinion/interpretation then they attack.

5. No one is ignorant of facts and statistics.  They don't matter.  They're just all made up anyway.  You know, 98% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

6. Fallacies galore.  People don't even seem to know what they are anymore.

7. People always think they're experts in everything.

Now, this #7 can include things beyond expertise, it feeds into the whole of the concept of ethos.  A certain pundit was derided with a sarcastic,"Oh yeah, you must feel really brave doing that!"  The natural inclination is to defend oneself by saying,"Hey that was brave.  You try to do it..." But instead, he responded,"Fist of all I never called myself brave.  I've never considered myself brave.  Those in the military are brave.  Cops are brave.  So, to try putting myself into that category is something I've never done."

Interesting how that admission actually INCREASED his ethos.  By admitting that weakness made the rest of his argument stronger.

I had another engineer bring me some of my calculations and pointed out a number I had used throughout the entire project.  It was incorrect.  I did a double check through proper manuals and codes.  He was right.  I'd been using the wrong variable all this time.  I said,"You're right.  I've been using the wrong value.  Let's fix it.

At the time I was not only the lead on the project, I was the principle engineer in that particular field for the entire company.  And I had been using an incorrect number that this guy who barely picked up the books noticed was incorrect.  I could have easily made excuses or tried to deny it or ignore it.  But how would that have helped anyone?  By admitting that I had done it incorrectly, my reputation actually rose at that office.

[NeuroTypical]

Open mind: It's nigh impossible to convince me that anything does not exist.  Proving that something isn't, is basically impossible.  From where I'm standing, being convinced of the non-existence of a thing, is the sign of a closed mind.

Maybe the test should be more along the lines of "What would it take to reduce your surety of God's existence to zero?"

[The Folk Prophet]

I think I need to be convinced, first off, that open-mindedness is a de facto absolute virtue. I would contend that it is not. Some level of it is. But some open-mindedness is just weakness and stupidity.

I'm not considering what it might take to change my mind...🤔..(edit: I meant to write "I'm now considering......" which was meant to be funny one way...but I guess "I'm not considering..." is funny in another. Oh well).

Edited November 15, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I think I need to be convinced, first off, that open-mindedness is a de facto absolute virtue. I would contend that it is not. Some level of it is. But some open-mindedness is just weakness and stupidity.

I'm not considering what it might take to change my mind.....🤔

You mean like, don't have a mind so open that your brains fall out?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, anatess2 said:

You mean like, don't have a mind so open that your brains fall out?

Well as it relates to religion...

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/1.8?lang=eng#7

and

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/wherefore-settle-this-in-your-hearts?lang=eng

We cannot keep one foot in the world and one foot in the gospel.

Oh...and:

Revelations 3:16

And as Mark E. Petersen explained:

"If we are interested in the gospel in the least degree, we should live it wholeheartedly. There is no point in deceiving ourselves and becoming victims of our own indiscretion. It is a fact so simple that even a child may understand—that if we are to be saved in the kingdom of heaven, we must live its laws honestly, completely, and wholeheartedly. To be halfhearted about it is repugnant to the Lord. He has said to the lukewarm that he will spew them from his mouth!"

Too much open-mindedness is just this to me. I'm going to give my heart, soul, mind, and might to God, believe in Him, trust in Him, and commit all I have and am to Him, but...I'm also going to keep an open mind that maybe He doesn't actually exist.

Give me a break.

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm with Descartes. The first test of an open mind is doubt. If you are 100% convinced you are right about everything, then it's hopeless. 

My personal test: If I can accurately guess 100% of your views within five minutes of knowing you, that's a problem. 

[Traveler]

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I used to have an atheist friend with whom I'd have many wonderful discussion about virtually everything.  We bonded because we found the common ground of being libertarian.

But obviously, we clashed on the topic of God.  At one point he asked me a question which, at the time, I did not understand the motive for.

"What would it take to convince you that God does not exist?"

"I believe the sun exists because I feel the warmth around me and see the light around me.  What would it take for me to deny the sun exists?"

He dropped to topic because at the time he just accepted that I was not going to be moved in my position on this.  The true purpose is that it was an "open-mindedness" test.  If you are a person who can define what it would take for you to change your mind on something, that is one sign that you are open minded.  Apparently in his mind, I failed the test.

After much consideration, I have to agree.  I am not open minded on the topic of the existence of God.  I know He exists and has had a positive hand in my life.  I know it as surely as the sun shines.  With that level, it is virtually impossible to say what it would take to sway me from that.  So, end of discussion.

But since then, I've had just a few other criteria that have come up that are "indicators" that someone is open minded.

1. Consider what it would take to change your mind.
2. Acknowledge weak points on your side of the argument.
3. Acknowledge strong points on the other side of the argument.
4. Acknowledge those areas that are indeed opinions/interpretations and not facts.
5. Acknowledge those areas where you are ignorant of the specifics or the facts/statistics.  And be thankful for someone bringing you correct facts and statistics.
6. Recognize what are real arguments rather than red herrings, dodging the issue, etc.  (most logical fallacies fall into this category).
7. Unless you really are a bonafide expert, don't try to make an appeal to authority to yourself.

Certainly not an exhaustive list.  But probably the most common things that people ignore.

I'll admit that I'm not open minded on a few things because I freely admit there's really no way to change my mind on the existence of God. Other things I'm simply highly certain of them because so far, I've never heard anyone give me a rational argument or reason to disbelieve them. 

What I see instead:

1. People don't stop to ask what it would take to change their minds because they are simply right.  So, why would I change my mind?  Well, if you're that sure, then that is a fair question.  But just how many things in life are you THAT sure about?  It seems that a LOT of politics these days are simply based on this "sure belief" on so many topics.  I have a hard time believing that anyone can have a SURE Knowledge about more than just a few topics.  Yet, you get into politics and everything is so sure that no one will change their minds.  EVER.

2&3. Instead of acknowledging weak and strong points and addressing them, people ignore them on move on to something else.

4.People state their opinion as a fact without discussion.  And if anyone tries to talk about that opinion/interpretation then they attack.

5. No one is ignorant of facts and statistics.  They don't matter.  They're just all made up anyway.  You know, 98% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

6. Fallacies galore.  People don't even seem to know what they are anymore.

7. People always think they're experts in everything.

Now, this #7 can include things beyond expertise, it feeds into the whole of the concept of ethos.  A certain pundit was derided with a sarcastic,"Oh yeah, you must feel really brave doing that!"  The natural inclination is to defend oneself by saying,"Hey that was brave.  You try to do it..." But instead, he responded,"Fist of all I never called myself brave.  I've never considered myself brave.  Those in the military are brave.  Cops are brave.  So, to try putting myself into that category is something I've never done."

Interesting how that admission actually INCREASED his ethos.  By admitting that weakness made the rest of his argument stronger.

I had another engineer bring me some of my calculations and pointed out a number I had used throughout the entire project.  It was incorrect.  I did a double check through proper manuals and codes.  He was right.  I'd been using the wrong variable all this time.  I said,"You're right.  I've been using the wrong value.  Let's fix it.

At the time I was not only the lead on the project, I was the principle engineer in that particular field for the entire company.  And I had been using an incorrect number that this guy who barely picked up the books noticed was incorrect.  I could have easily made excuses or tried to deny it or ignore it.  But how would that have helped anyone?  By admitting that I had done it incorrectly, my reputation actually rose at that office.

An open mind is usually defined as someone that agrees and close mind is usually defined as someone that disagrees.  

Try this with you atheists friend - also what it would take to convince them that electrons do not exist?

Then point out that the debate is not really if electrons exist or not but actually what their true attributes really are.  Obviously our universe is ordered - the question is not weather or not it is ordered but the attributes of that order and the intelligence that initiated and maintains that order.

 

The Traveler.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm with Descartes. The first test of an open mind is doubt. If you are 100% convinced you are right about everything, then it's hopeless. 

My personal test: If I can accurately guess 100% of your views within five minutes of knowing you, that's a problem. 

Well, I think most people can guess 95% of my views within five minutes of knowing me if a) They are well educated. and b) actually listen to what I say in those five minutes rather than projecting what they assume.  I'm real open like that.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

An open mind is usually defined as someone that agrees and close mind is usually defined as someone that disagrees.  

Try this with you atheists friend - also what it would take to convince them that electrons do not exist?

Then point out that the debate is not really if electrons exist or not but actually what their true attributes really are.  Obviously our universe is ordered - the question is not weather or not it is ordered but the attributes of that order and the intelligence that initiated and maintains that order.

 

The Traveler.

Good ideas.  But alas, I lost contact with that particular friend about 4 or 5 years ago.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think I need to be convinced, first off, that open-mindedness is a de facto absolute virtue. I would contend that it is not. Some level of it is. But some open-mindedness is just weakness and stupidity.

Totally agree.  That's why I readily admitted I am NOT open-minded -- ON THIS ONE TOPIC, and perhaps a few more.

What I find equally weak and stupid is people who have that level of surety about EVERYTHING.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, I think most people can guess 95% of my views within five minutes of knowing me if a) They are well educated. and b) actually listen to what I say in those five minutes rather than projecting what they assume.  I'm real open like that.

It's not an exact science of course, there are exceptions. Shame you aren't one of of them. (Just playing @Carborendum, you know I have huge respect for you and yes, I think you are interesting). 

You can't put most of my close friends in a box. I have friends who are huge liberals-but own guns. I have friends who are right wing republicans-but read the Village Voice. So I'm very very lucky. 

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Good ideas.  But alas, I lost contact with that particular friend about 4 or 5 years ago.

Understand - I used this with an atheists friend - he understood and agrees but is still an atheists - but that argument about G-d are logically ended - at least between us and I understand he is atheists for other reason.  It is sort of like many of my friends of other religions - in their heart they agree with much of our doctrine but cannot (for whatever reason) become a Latter-Day Saint.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

You can't put most of my close friends in a box.   Shame you aren't one of of them.

Yeah, I got that message loud and clear. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yeah, I got that message loud and clear. 

I had to cut you out of the inner circle bro. You told the cops about my compound! Apparently polygamy is illegal in Florida! 

[anatess2]

So, the latest Jordan Peterson interview was awesome.  The interviewer is this avowed feminist who is writing a book on the Patriarcy, Helen Lewis, whose conclusions contradict what Peterson refers to as "clearly supported by scientific literature".

I disagree with @Carborendum's assessment that he is close minded.  It is like saying Jordan Peterson is close-minded or Helen Lewis (views opposing Peterson) is close-minded.  Rather, they have explored and experienced and tested life and came to these conclusions.  In matters of faith, we put faith in the belief unless it is veritably proven wrong.  We gain testimonies to confirm that faith to move it from maybe to surety.

So, the best part of the interview, in my opinion, is when Peterson told Lewis during their discussion of the Patriarchy that she is displaying the pathology of ideological possession;  that she’s become a mouthpiece for a particular ideology and she’s unthinkingly regurgitating the dogma she’s been taught by her influencers.  He says it’s as if he’s talking to an automaton and he can predict what she's going to say.  Peterson stated that it is frustrating because it's like talking to a cardboard character.  He wants to talk to the real person underneath the cardboard.  Lewis, standing up for herself, challenged Peterson to predict what she's going to say about transgender issues.  Peterson does not know that Lewis has the reputation of being a TERF (he prefers to not know anything about his interviewers so he won't have preconceived notions about where the interview will go) so he predicted wrongly as Lewis pointed out.  To which Peterson answered, "Congratulations!".  I think that was sarcastically said because even as feminist trans exclusionaries is a smaller group within the feminist umbrella, it is still one of those regurgitated ideologies and Lewis' position on it is an exact replica of that group identity.  I loved the interview because Lewis gave Peterson a good challenge and there were times when you can see Peterson get hot under the collar (as much as Peterson gets hot under the collar).

Anyway, what I'm getting at is this - being a Believer is not close-minded nor is it an ideological possession depending on the experiences that molded such belief.  If you're just mouthing the ideologies like an automaton then, yeah, that would be concerning.  But if you have a string of experiences (a true conversion) that led you to that steel-firm belief then that position is a by-product of one's open-mindedness.  On the other hand, I find it hard to consider Atheism as open minded.  I just don't understand how one can gain experiences to be certain about the non-existence of something.  Usually, what I find is that atheists are simply anti-religion so their supporting experiences is that - "Christians say this happened because of God.  Well, it didn't happen to me, so there's no God." or something to that effect, which is a logical fallacy.

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by anatess2

[person0]

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

"What would it take to convince you that God does not exist?"

"I believe the sun exists because I feel the warmth around me and see the light around me.  What would it take for me to deny the sun exists?"

He dropped to topic because at the time he just accepted that I was not going to be moved in my position on this.  The true purpose is that it was an "open-mindedness" test.  If you are a person who can define what it would take for you to change your mind on something, that is one sign that you are open minded.  Apparently in his mind, I failed the test.

After much consideration, I have to agree.  I am not open minded on the topic of the existence of God.  I know He exists and has had a positive hand in my life.  I know it as surely as the sun shines.  With that level, it is virtually impossible to say what it would take to sway me from that.  So, end of discussion.
. . .

I'll admit that I'm not open minded on a few things because I freely admit there's really no way to change my mind on the existence of God.

I would argue that your friend's test is inherently flawed and inaccurate.  The reason being that there are two types of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori.   Knowledge a priori can be proven with facts; knowledge a posteriori can only be proven by experience.  The existence or nonexistence of God is something that can only be known by personal experience, however, it is commonly debated as if it were something that could be proven without the need for such experience.

If I were in your shoes, my response to your friend would have been, 'Because the existence or nonexistence of God cannot be proven factually, I will accept that God does not exist as soon as I have an experience that proves it.'  You see, it is 100% impossible to KNOW that God does not exist, because it is impossible to have experience with His nonexistence.  The only method by which God's existence could be disproved is by an authorized test, such as that between Elijah and the Priests of Baal.  Baal was proved to be nonexistent, because his 'authorized servants' could not produce the miracle.

There will never be a time when a servant who is truly authorized by God will be unable to produce a miraculous event, only one who is acting of their own volition, without the direction of the Spirit.  Even if such an event were to occur, the only way it could occur, would be if someone were proving the existence of a different deity, which, even if successful, would still prove that a god exists somewhere.  Hence we return to my original thought, your friends premise was flawed; you are unable to come up with something that would disprove God's existence, because other than individual doubt, even if God did not exist it is impossible to have an experience that will actually establish God's nonexistence.  On the other hand, if God does exist it is possible to have an experience that would prove His existence to an individual; we know that experience to be a personal manifestation by the power of the Holy Ghost.

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What I find equally weak and stupid is people who have that level of surety about EVERYTHING.

I disagree.  I think one can have that level of surety, but still be open minded.  I am the type of person who maintains a very high level of confidence in my opinions. However, I am absolutely willing to have my opinions changed when sufficient evidence is provided.  In practice though, most people lack the willingness to put forth the effort to adequately present their opinions and supporting data in such a way that would change my mind.  That said, there is no lack of that in this forum.  My mind has been changes on multiple topics by you Vort and others, because the information was presented appropriately and to the necessary extent.

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

You can't put most of my close friends in a box.

People think you have to hack off limbs to make this happen, but really you just need to break some inconvenient bones.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, mordorbund said:

People think you have to hack off limbs to make this happen, but really you just need to break some inconvenient bones.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

THAT'S AWESOME. 

[zil]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Fallacies

Hey!  This is a family forum!  I'm reporting you!

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's nigh impossible to convince me that anything does not exist.

That's because, by definition, everything exists, and anything is a subset of everything, therefore anything exists.  The only way for anything to not exist would be if it were nothing, but then it wouldn't be anything anymore, it would be nothing, and for nothing to exist, everything would have to cease to exist.  Thus, anything clearly exists.

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

You can't put most of my close friends in a box. I have friends who are huge...

What it it were a refrigerator box?  Would most of them fit in there?  Or are they really that huge?

[Guest]

Just now, zil said:

Hey!  This is a family forum!  I'm reporting you!

a-HEM!!!

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

What it it were a refrigerator box?  Would most of them fit in there?  Or are they really that huge?

@mordorbund already made the best box joke. Can't top it. Move on. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, person0 said:

I disagree.  I think one can have that level of surety, but still be open minded.  I am the type of person who maintains a very high level of confidence in my opinions. However, I am absolutely willing to have my opinions changed when sufficient evidence is provided.  In practice though, most people lack the willingness to put forth the effort to adequately present their opinions and supporting data in such a way that would change my mind.  That said, there is no lack of that in this forum.  My mind has been changes on multiple topics by you Vort and others, because the information was presented appropriately and to the necessary extent.

I've been considering this for a bit.  I think you've hit on somerthing that is a big part of the open minded thing.

There are some things we KNOW as facts.  Then from those facts, we formulate interpretations and opinions.  But people tend to be unable to distinguish between those interpretations, conclusions, and opinions from the base facts that we have found.

You spoke of opinions.  But what about underlying beliefs? Convictions? Assumed facts?  How many of these fundamental things do you hold dear?  I would hope there are not many.  The reason why is that I don't believe there really are that many things in life that we can know with such surety that they become fundamental to our very being.

Another effect is that if we have too many fundamental things we cling to, then there is a great chance that there are conflicts that will not go away.

[person0]

15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The reason why is that I don't believe there really are that many things in life that we can know with such surety that they become fundamental to our very being.

I agree with you.  I think that most things require the combination of factual knowledge as well as knowledge by experience to become a fundamental truth.  This combination is epitomized by God's call to us to study and learn from the 'best books' and to 'study it out in [our] mind' and then to ask him.  Hence, we will come to a decision based on facts, then, he will give us an experience (via the holy spirit) to solidify the truth of the matter.  If that process is accurately followed, even if the end result is not what we expect, we can still be assured that the decision was right.  Likewise, certain important truth's such as the existence of God can follow this pattern as well.  That said, even the combination of those two types of learning is not sufficient to prevent someone's mind from being changed by doubt.  This has been seen countless times as Satan mimics these processes as best he can, which has the primary effect to the individual's experience, and the secondary effect to the observer who compares the counterfeit experience to their real one, where both use similar language to describe it.

I think things are interrelated for people more than they are dear and fundamental, and the disconnect of these things could cause other things to crumble when people place too much faith in the wrong thing.  As you know, I personally do not believe that organic evolution was used by God in the creation of this earth; I have my reasons for believing that as others have their reasons for believing differently.  If I were to one day be given sufficient evidence to change my mind, I would, and I wouldn't care one bit.  However, my devotion to God hinges on the truth of the Restored Gospel.  Although I do not feel it possible, if I were to one day receive sufficient actual proof to no longer believe the truthfulness of the restored Gospel, it would affect my willingness to believe in God, unless there was a new reason provided to replace that which was lost.  Kind of a weird example, but I am reminded of Mordo (from Dr. Strange) and his overabundance of faith in the idea that the 'Ancient One' used only the powers of light, where he would have more correctly placed his faith in the idea that she only sought for the advancement of light and truth but would use all tools at her disposal.  Similarly (but different), people occasionally seem to have difficulty accepting that God will use the evil and corrupt to unwittingly bring about His purposes, such as in the case of the Israelites in Egypt.  Anyway, not sure if my point is clear, but regardless, I think you make a good point.

[Rob Osborn]

I believe it is possible to be open minded, just improbable in most circumstances. However one views it, the problem is that we have bias and even when we think we arent showing bias, we in fact really are. 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I believe it is possible to be open minded, just improbable in most circumstances. However one views it, the problem is that we have bias and even when we think we arent showing bias, we in fact really are. 

Bias is not correlated to open-mindedness.

Bias is simply a default position.  For example, "Innocent until Proven Guilty" is a bias to Innocence.  But it is not close-minded to Guilt.