Logic is the destroyer of an open mind?

J

jayleew

Who Cares
Valued Senior Member
So often on sciforums I am suprised at people's (specifically non-theists) close-mindedness. Where does this come from?

Perhaps logic is the destroyer of an open mind. How can one say in one statement that it is illogical to believe in a god (which is true), and the next that they have an open mind to the existence of a god. Is that in itself illogical?

An open mind leaves room to discover the unexpected, no matter how improbable. Is having an open mind illogical? It seems that having an open mind is illogical, since the probability of an infinite number of possibilities are equal, the chance of one of possibilities is infinitely small. So, having an open mind to any of those possibilities is illogical. If not, then what is an open mind?

An open mind is soooo yesterday. A logical mind is a closed mind that is open to debate and new evidence to assimilate, but not any possibility that has none. Is that not the definition of a closed mind? It is no wonder that we haven't got our minds past the third dimension. We are complacent, and necessity is the mother of invention. Come on Columbus, be logical! You're going to fall of the edge of the Earth and good riddance to your delusional mind!
 
Being open-minded is simply the willingness to consider other ideas it doesn't mean believing in them. One can, in fact I would argue that one should, be both logical and open-minded.

~Raithere
 
Is that not the definition of a closed mind?

A closed mind is a mind that is not ready to receive new ideas.

One must be clear on what a new idea represents. It may be new to some but re-hashed nonsense to others.
 
jayleew said:
So often on sciforums I am suprised at people's (specifically non-theists) close-mindedness. Where does this come from?

Perhaps logic is the destroyer of an open mind. How can one say in one statement that it is illogical to believe in a god (which is true), and the next that they have an open mind to the existence of a god. Is that in itself illogical?

An open mind leaves room to discover the unexpected, no matter how improbable. Is having an open mind illogical? It seems that having an open mind is illogical, since the probability of an infinite number of possibilities are equal, the chance of one of possibilities is infinitely small. So, having an open mind to any of those possibilities is illogical. If not, then what is an open mind?

An open mind is soooo yesterday. A logical mind is a closed mind that is open to debate and new evidence to assimilate, but not any possibility that has none. Is that not the definition of a closed mind? It is no wonder that we haven't got our minds past the third dimension. We are complacent, and necessity is the mother of invention. Come on Columbus, be logical! You're going to fall of the edge of the Earth and good riddance to your delusional mind!
Click to expand...
You don't have to base a belief in logic.

This is life, that in itself is more than logic. Things happen. The sun is there. The wind blows a tree, a bird is singing.

It's not the natural cause why that makes me awe, it's the experiance itself, that something can exist and that reality really looks like this. Things have color. It depends on the way the light reflects and/or absorbs by the object. That several independent processess works together to create our reality which seems so...natural, despite all the go-arounds to get there.

Also the understanding that this is it, this is how reality was to be makes me think that there has to be some meaning to it, cause it could have been in a infinitly number of ways, and this was it.

Also my past and my present allways seems to have some meaning as to where I'm going to. It's just natural and it happens for the best.

There's alot of other things that's somehow beyond logic but in every aspect real.

All of these things helps me believe, but I doubt that these things alone can make one believe...cause it's not only what is experianced it's also when and how it fits with other things experianced, sometimes they just match and things in the past make sense and you realise that you are where you are meant to be, and the road you have taken was the path to take you there.

In that way I think everything has meaning.

If we were to logically describe the existance or non-existance of God, then we have to describe existance itself. What is allowed to exist? And why? Logic? Don't think so, everything is logical if you make a long enough equation, that in itself doesn't show that it exists. What logic is there that tells us what logic is allowed to exist? You would find you are searching for the equation of equations.
 
Raithere said:
Being open-minded is simply the willingness to consider other ideas it doesn't mean believing in them. One can, in fact I would argue that one should, be both logical and open-minded.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

How can one say in one statement that it is illogical to believe in a god (which is true), and the next that they have an open mind to the existence of a god?

It is illogical to have the willingness to consider other ideas that have an infinitely small probability of being true. So, it is illogical to have the willingness to consider that God exists because scientifically, there is an infinitely small probability of God's existence.

Or so it seems from most non-theists here on sciforums. How can one be both logical and open-minded then?

Are you saying that instead, you have faith that there is no God? I can understand how that would at least be logical in a sense to yet have an open-mind.
 
(Q) said:
Is that not the definition of a closed mind?

A closed mind is a mind that is not ready to receive new ideas.

One must be clear on what a new idea represents. It may be new to some but re-hashed nonsense to others.
Click to expand...

How can a mind that says it is illogical for say, God's existence, be yet open?...logically. It is illogical to have an open mind to a possibility with a nearly impossible possibility. Are you saying you leave room for evidence of an impossibility?

If so, maybe I have the wrong perception of some people, due to debating with non-theists that do have a closed mind.
 
Being open minded on this subject would define being Agnostic. Agnostic doesn't "believe" one way or the other, an agnostic is just unconvinced on the closed mindedness of thesists and athiests.
 
KennyJC said:
Being open minded on this subject would define being Agnostic. Agnostic doesn't "believe" one way or the other, an agnostic is just unconvinced on the closed mindedness of thesists and athiests.
Click to expand...

Most theists and most atheists do have closed minds. Agnostic seems a very sensible position to have. That is probably what best describes what I was 10 years ago in my late teens and early twenties.
 
jayleew said:
How can one say in one statement that it is illogical to believe in a god (which is true), and the next that they have an open mind to the existence of a god?

It is illogical to have the willingness to consider other ideas that have an infinitely small probability of being true. So, it is illogical to have the willingness to consider that God exists because scientifically, there is an infinitely small probability of God's existence
Click to expand...
There is no contradiction, I don't know why you're inventing one.

Let's use a different example. It is quite logical to conclude that there is no life on Mars at this point in time. However, one can still be open minded and be willing to examine any new arguments or evidence and reconsider one's conclusion. This is being both logical and open minded.

Just apply the same thing to god. I have not heard any arguments or seen any evidence that leads me to conclude that god does exist, I therefore do not believe in god's existence just as I do not believe life exists on Mars. However, were new arguments brought forth or new evidence come to light I would reconsider my position.

Close-mindedness is the unwillingness to even reconsider one's position no matter what.

~Raithere
 
Raithere said:
There is no contradiction, I don't know why you're inventing one.

Let's use a different example. It is quite logical to conclude that there is no life on Mars at this point in time. However, one can still be open minded and be willing to examine any new arguments or evidence and reconsider one's conclusion. This is being both logical and open minded.

Just apply the same thing to god. I have not heard any arguments or seen any evidence that leads me to conclude that god does exist, I therefore do not believe in god's existence just as I do not believe life exists on Mars. However, were new arguments brought forth or new evidence come to light I would reconsider my position.

Close-mindedness is the unwillingness to even reconsider one's position no matter what.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

What if I said, "There is life on Mars because I have faith from what I've seen about Mars, and I will prove it by going there." And I find a space ship to go to Mars and you laugh as I leave the Earth. Am I not acting illogically, and you are acting logically by not going with me? Who has the open mind, and who does not? Can we both have the open mind?

Isn't a closed-mind a logical conclusion today with what evidence we have today? Sure the future may open your mind to new ideas, but because you are not WILLING to take a leap and go to Mars with me, with not a shred of evidence at hand, is your mind not closed? Isn't an open mind a leap of faith to test a theory? If you find the theory is false, isn't your mind closed on the issue? Scientists have an open mind until a conclusion is reached. Sure, other people with open minds may present new evidence and thereby opening his peer's mind, but until that event, the first scientist's mind is closed. Isn't it?

How can we be a logical scientist with an open mind? Perhaps a scientist with an open mind would rather retest his theories over and over without end, therby never reaching a complete truth, which is illogical behavior.

It is logical to make a conclusion that is closed until new evidence is presented by an open mind. A conclusion implies closure to the hypothesis. It is a logical decision. So, an open mind after the conclusion is reached is illogical. Isn't it?
 
jayleew said:
What if I said, "There is life on Mars because I have faith from what I've seen about Mars, and I will prove it by going there." And I find a space ship to go to Mars and you laugh as I leave the Earth. Am I not acting illogically, and you are acting logically by not going with me? Who has the open mind, and who does not? Can we both have the open mind?
Click to expand...
You're thinking diametrically. Things aren't yes or no, black and white. If you told me you were going to the Sun to find life I would say you're insane (unless perhaps if you has some support for a theory of plasma based life). Life on Mars is far more likely (it has water and organic molecules) and I would in fact support your mission.

Scientists have an open mind until a conclusion is reached. Sure, other people with open minds may present new evidence and thereby opening his peer's mind, but until that event, the first scientist's mind is closed. Isn't it?
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be... no one's should. One should always be positing and examining new hypotheses, exploring new ideas. If there's one thing I consistently combat here its certitude. Epistemologically speaking I'm agnostic... question all presumptions.

Perhaps what you are mistaking for close-mindedness here is simply experience. After you've been gone over an argument a number of times you come to know it well, you can pick it apart or support it very quickly and concisely. This might appear as close-mindedness but it's really just the fact that the argument has already been considered. We see it repeatedly here where some new member posts an argument that they have recently discovered and are very excited about, only to be met with abrupt refutation. I'm sure that to them this appears close-minded. But often it's simply that the concept is not new and has already been examined at length.

~Raithere
 
KennyJC said:
Being open minded on this subject would define being Agnostic. Agnostic doesn't "believe" one way or the other, an agnostic is just unconvinced on the closed mindedness of thesists and athiests.
Click to expand...
You need to refine your understanding of Atheism and Agnosticism.

Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God.
Agnosticism refers to knowledge, not belief.

You can be an agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist.
I am an agnostic atheist, for example.

And yes, it is illogical to believe in the existence of God.
But I remain open minded to the existence of God should evidence be found to support the claim.
I would be close-minded if I refused to accept valid evidence when it did come along.
 
Raithere said:
You're thinking diametrically. Things aren't yes or no, black and white. If you told me you were going to the Sun to find life I would say you're insane (unless perhaps if you has some support for a theory of plasma based life). Life on Mars is far more likely (it has water and organic molecules) and I would in fact support your mission.

It shouldn't be... no one's should. One should always be positing and examining new hypotheses, exploring new ideas. If there's one thing I consistently combat here its certitude. Epistemologically speaking I'm agnostic... question all presumptions.

Perhaps what you are mistaking for close-mindedness here is simply experience. After you've been gone over an argument a number of times you come to know it well, you can pick it apart or support it very quickly and concisely. This might appear as close-mindedness but it's really just the fact that the argument has already been considered. We see it repeatedly here where some new member posts an argument that they have recently discovered and are very excited about, only to be met with abrupt refutation. I'm sure that to them this appears close-minded. But often it's simply that the concept is not new and has already been examined at length.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

Ahh, so basically you all are waiting for something new to chew on.

In that sense, you still have an open mind on the issue, but you are decided upon the evidence. In that case, this horse is dead. Science and man cannot prove God, especially because the evidence says there is not. But, also because the moment we explain the unexplainable, we have take a huge step to mastering it, and later controlling or predicting it. If such were to occur with a god, the god would no longer be a god. Since I am convinced there is a God, I am convinced it will never happen and I delight in the awesome wonder.
 
How can a mind that says it is illogical for say, God's existence, be yet open?...logically.

Locigally, gods cannot exist. I am quite open to a logical argument in favor of gods existence.

None have yet been provided.

And if you haven't noticed, I have always comended those who have offered valid responses, although the evidence to their response has not been forthcoming.
 
Those with open minds examine all the facts, those with closed minds only believe in what they seem to know and accept those beliefs without examination of all the facts.
 
"There's a thing called being so open minded your brains drop out" - Richard Dawkins
 
jayleew said:
How can one say in one statement that it is illogical to believe in a god (which is true), and the next that they have an open mind to the existence of a god?
Click to expand...

My interpretation of the statement is as follows:

"It is illogical to accept the idea that 'God' exists as truth without considering
supportive and contradictive evidence, and I am open to consideing the
existence of 'God' pending supportive or contradictory evidence."
 
Wow.

The lengths some people will go to...

The most close-minded group on the planet are theists because they're lives are based on faith. There is no evidence, proof, or demonstration of any kind that could ever turn their faith into disbelief. On the other hand, every atheist I know (dozens if not hundreds) has at one time or another said "just show me some valid evidence and I'll reconsider anything". And it's true. We have no ax to grind. If god comes down and reveals himself, and explains all the fuckedupedness of the world and his role in it, we'll get on board. But he'll have to be goddamned convincing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top