“Open to the possibilities..”

Comment by: Ir

Matt wrote: Hence, I have never really responded to well to someone who has tried to convince me that they’re “right” as I believe such a person is already shut down to the possibility of an honest discussion (i.e., they have already decided the outcome of the discussion—they are “right—and will cherry pick facts to support their case).

Are you saying you’re not open to what those people say even though they might be right? ;)

So far as my information about Christians: one of my closest friends is an evangelical Christian, as are his friends, and we talk about these things pretty often.

Evidently you have not come to share his faith. I expect your friend has a theory about why. Do you think his theory might be that you are not open enough to what he is saying? If not what do you think his theory is? (Of course you can ask him what he thinks, if you like)

And the fundamentals of our existence that I mention can be distilled into one fundamental question that all open-minded people often ask themselves: why are we here?

Atheists and believers are connected in that we share this fundamental question. We are fundamentally different in that not all of us need it answered.

Thanks for explaining what you think the fundamental question is - that saves me guessing!

I would say that Christians only ask “Why am I here?” because they see it as relevant to the more practical question “what shall I do with my life?” Atheists also ask “What shall I do with my life?”.

The different starting points lead to somewhat different answers, in some respects, but it’s hard for me to call such an abstract philosophical question as “why are we here?” ‘fundamental to our existence’. Even if Christians like to spin it that way.

I was a Christian for a long time and in practice living my life didn’t have much to do with pondering why I am here. It was more about things like “how can I get my errands done today and still be on time to pick up my kids from school?”

Comment by: Ir

NCXian: great response to Matt! :)

Comment by: Jayson B.

My perception of a difference between the Cs and As here at this site has been that the As think that reality is (or is likely) limited to the natural world, the Cs are more open-minded to the notion that there is something more. (What you said, I think, Matt, I’m just spinning it from the other direction).

So, from your perspective, Atheists are close minded, and christians aren’t.

I’d say the exact opposite.

So I’d say that the difference between c’s and a’s is that c’s think that a’s aren’t open minded about the supernatural, and a’s think that c’s aren’t openminded about their NOT being a supernatural.

I think that’s a far more balanced way to put it.

Comment by: Esther

I just want to make one comment.
Matt, you’ve said,

My quest in working with Jim is to find out why he—and so many other thoughtful, intelligent people—think there is. Having that belief in the supernatural means anything is possible: anything.

I used to be a fundamentalist Evangelistic Christian since “birth” :-)
Now, I definitely have left that turf but not sure what’s next.
I found what you’ve said was really interesting because that is exactly how I feel when I decided to leave my old rigid religious doctrine. I feel that the possibilities outside is limitless. If I decided that the Bible may not be the ultimate truth from God, and what my Church has taught me may not be true, then there can be infinite possibilities out there, as you put it : anything! Anything is possible.

Howcome an atheist like you would view the opposite exactly the same as I view my opposite?
Interesting!

Comment by: Jayson B.

I wasn’t stating my perspective Jayson, I was rephrasing Matt’s statement from an opposing perspective (not my own).

interesting. I apologize, I just assumed when you said “from my perspective” that was what you were going for.

I’m curious, what was your purpose for offering up the opposing view if it wasn’t yours, and without any other commentary?

Comment by: Matt Casper

Believe it or not, I think we’re all on the same page: the fundamental difference between Atheism and Theism is a question of “why,” a question of purpose (a reason why I think Rick Warren’s book is so popular).

And my comment on vanity is simply that when one ceases to accept other possibilities as, well, possible, it comes across as being vain/self-righteous/whathaveyou. And that does nothing to further real discourse.

It’s a basic quid pro quo: In the interests of having a truly open discussion, I, as an atheist, freely admit that I may be wrong and there is a God. Will you as a Christian be willing to freely admit that you may be wrong and there is not a God?

Comment by: Jim Henderson

It’s a basic quid pro quo: In the interests of having a truly open discussion, I, as an atheist, freely admit that I may be wrong and there is a God. Will you as a Christian be willing to freely admit that you may be wrong and there is not a God?

This is an interesting question - It sounds to me like the same kind of openmindedness I receieved from Hemant when we agreed to survey churches for us. But Matts spin on “am I willing to admit I may be wrong and that there is no God” adds a new dimension.

To be very honest I would say I am willing to admit I cannot prove anything about what I say I place my hope in (believe)and I am willing to admit that in essence I have “placed a bet” on Jesus and the Jesus Story (which I just admitted I can’t prove) and that the only time either of us will know for certain (at least based on our current knowledge of what we call “reality”) will be at our Death- and the funny part about that is neither of us will care about being right anymore or if we do care can;t do a damn thing about it.

I am content with that - is that still not “honest” enough?

Comment by: Ir

Matt wrote: I just wanted to write the phrase “pudding of death” again as it’s one of the most inane things I’ve ever said…

LOL Matt :)

Why not reframe it as ‘profound’, not ‘inane’?

I think what is necessary may be, then, simply a willingness to listen without prejudice (I think that’s also the title of a George Michael recording…?), to listen to each other without the filter of our beliefs dampening what we hear or coloring our responses.

We had some discussion about filters a few weeks ago. Admitting that we have them is a good starting point, I think.

It seems to me that listening is a good thing in so many ways. If we don’t listen we can’t learn.

Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

I tend to a more cynical view.

Matt said,

I think that most every discussion people have is driven by either values or facts. Factual discussions are unencumbered by “right” and “wrong.” Facts are facts.

A values-, or belief driven, discussion is an entirely more tricky matter, because people typically decide ahead of time what’s right and what’s wrong…

I’ve come to the conclusion that this view is fatuous. Those who desire to be perceived as an intellectual make much of a vaunted open mindedness. But the fact is that they bring logical a priori suppositions to the facts; they are not derived from the facts.

A story will illustrate. Some time ago the question was posed, and I was asked to prepare a response for discussion by a university faculty group: Is faith falsifiable? Essentially the same question you’ve asked, Matt,

Will you as a Christian be willing to freely admit that you may be wrong and there is not a God?

I did some research on the current state of brain research and naturalistic bases for religion. What I found, in a nutshell, was that the facts are that there is a center in the brain, the pre-frontal cortex, that lights up like a Christmas tree when people are engaged in “religious” activities.

But facts have no meaning. They must be placed in a philosophical context to take on meaning. So, people with naturalistic assumptions conclude that this structure evolved because of the survival benefits associated with “religious” activities such as meditation, etc. And so, likewise, people with supernaturalistic assumptions conclude that God created a physical, 3-dimensional creature with a special “antenna” that can receive communication from spiritual, multi-dimensional origins.

So the notion that that people can routinely move through life in some sort of “open-minded” paradigm strikes me as charmingly naieve. This is not to say that major paradigm shifts cannot occur. They obviously do. There are several on the blog that have experienced such shifts. But what it does suggest to me is that such shifts don’t happen wily-nily or as a result of being “open-minded”. Rather, I suspect, they happen when a person, who has been a strong adherent of a particular view point or philosophy, suddenly finds themselves ‘in extremis’ and discovers that their previously held views “don’t work” for them. The response may be to question the particular “flavor” of their philosophical structure — eg, a fundamentalist version of Christianity vs. a more “open” or liberal version of Christianity. Or the response may be to “throw the baby out with the bath water”; reject the whole thing from the ground up. And while the former response may be the healthier response, people ‘in extremis’ may look long and hard at the environment in which they find themselves only to discover that there are no paradigms and no role models that can point the way to anything other than a radical destruction

My two bits. YMMV.

Comment by: Jim Henderson

Tom I agree with this

I’ve come to the conclusion that this view is fatuous. Those who desire to be perceived as an intellectual make much of a vaunted open mindedness. But the fact is that they bring logical a priori suppositions to the facts; they are not derived from the facts.

It would be more believable if people who claim the high ground of “facts” were more humble about their presuppositions- at least then I would be forced to actually think more deeply about their views- It is (for me) exactly the same kind of attitude I react to when Cs bring the “I know” kind of talk out - They slide rapidly downhill in my trustometer

Comment by: Marty

Can you say “I am currently a Christian” and leave the door open to the possibility that there is no God and no other forces at work in the world?”

Matt - I read your question of me just before I left for a delayed Mothers day with my Mom and family. It has been rattling in my head during this time. A part of me has been wondering - “just when I thought I had overcome my last prejudice - has Matt come around and hit me with my latest?” Maybe so - plus I have to ask myself why I think my previous prejudice relative to Atheists was my last prejudice?

My belief in God is a personal choice - which in my life has always been driven by the magnificience of nature including things like the lake (ducks, geese, wildflowers, mountains, red tail hawks, sounds of the birds, etc) I live by, healing (I love to closely think about and monitor my body as it heals - and also the wonder of whether it will heal), etc. My belief in God is not based upon some book, some minister - although the word God could be exchanged for Higher Power or even Love and I would be quite content. I understand the Atheists have different ideas relative to this same magnificiance - but don’t feel it is from God or a Higher Power - and I respect their understanding.

I have reflected on and written on my Spiritual Path - and often ended what I have written with - “and I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow.” - thinking I am open to new information - but not having in my mind the possibility of not believing there is a God or Higher Power.

But your question makes me have to go even deeper.

Some of the Atheists on this board have been very compelling to me - and I have learned a lot from them - no doubt more than I have learned from the Christians - and I have hung out most of my life with the Christians - but not until recently with any Atheists. I have been very impressed with what seems to me to be a tremendous integrity that I have found in I think all of the Atheists on this board - regardless of how they share their position. I tune into the friendly Atheists more - but I don’t find myself doubting the integrity of the Atheists whose way of sometimes conveying information is difficult for me to tune into their position. I think there are lots of fascades and hypocrisy in some within Christiandom and religion (I would guess not of those Christians on this Board) - whereas I have not yet sensed that among the Atheists on this board or I have recently gotten to know.

Much of what religion presents - particularly from the religious right - I find quite offensive - and I would rather be identified with Atheists then these people. While at the same time - I think that people like Jim, Brian and others are sharing with us a new kind of Christianity - that I wonder if that had been what the Atheists had experienced all their lives - whether they would have chosen to be Atheists.

With all this being said - right now - in this moment, I can’t bring myself to say that I am open to becoming an Atheist - but I always reserve the right to change :-).

Comment by: Lisa W.

(Jim in comment #21)
I’m just wondering how to get my “trust-o-meter” recalibrated…

Comment by: Ir

Good question :)

I have a skeptometer for facts and a trustometer for people. My trustometer readings are influenced by my skeptometer ones.

Comment by: isaone

The open mindedness question brings to mind this quote ” I try to keep an open mind just not so open that my brains fall out” (generally attributed to Harold T. Stone the judge on Night court but also Enrico Fermi). How open is open and what do we mean by it. If ‘open’ means that I will examine the evidence and base my beliefs on that evidence then I am all for it! If open means that whatever bizarre belief that come my way I will believe it (check out the comments on Consegrity in the current newsletter of the Skeptics Dictionary) no matter what impact it has on my life, then I am against it!

Comment by: Ir

Julie, what’s an e-meter? Does it have to stay in the box because if I get it out here it’s going to go into the red zone and say “Warning! Danger! Detecting people present who don’t ascribe to the One True Belief System!”

Comment by: Ir

Wow, Julie Marie. Hey I hope no-one around here has one of those that can detect MY ‘hidden crimes’. I’m counting on being able to keep them hidden! ;)

(I suppose God has one of those, but I don’t mind that because to date he hasn’t revealed anything to other human beings which I don’t want to reveal)

Comment by: Julie Marie

“I am currently a Christian” and leave the door open to the possibility that there is no God and no other forces at work in the world?”

I was looking at pictures from the hubble telescope a few weeks ago. On one hand, the cosmos looks very celestial and Godly to me. On the other hand….looking at those pictures of vastness…that glimpse back to almost the beginning of time….I have to admit, in a tiny corner of my heart, the disturbing possiblity of nothing being in control.

Comment by: Ir

I wonder if that is why so many people are reluctant to go see a counselor when life gets complicated - do they fear having their secrets rudely exposed while they sit there like a vulnerable quivering mass?

I think a big factor is that we’d rather pretend we don’t need help enough to go see a counselor. It doesn’t help that there’s some stigma about going to see them.

In general I agree that we would rather not reveal our secrets to others. We live under the delusion that no-one has secrets as bad as ours. If we would share our secrets with one another we might find out that’s not true and it would be very reassuring and freeing. But it takes some courage to be the first one to do it - because what if the other person is shocked and says “You WHAT?” instead of saying “Hey, me too!”

Comment by: isaone

Matt I certainly agree that the different points of view (or paradigms as Jim mentioned in our show) can cause people to resolve completely different meanings to the same ‘facts’. Science resolves this problem by taking the results of many interpretations of the same events (experiments) and examines them overall. By comparing the multiple results Scientists determine a truth that stands independent of the observer. I have often said that if I was alone in a room and God appeared to me, my reaction would not be to convert but to have myself committed. If however God appeared in Madison Square Garden in front of thousands of witnesses and performed a documented miracle in front of multiple people and reliable cameras (Live on CNN..) , I would have to admit I was completely wrong. Religion tends to exalt the personal internal spiritual experience which is completely unique to the individual. Meaning is then attached to that experience by the individual based on their own cultural upbringing. So while a specific spiritual experience is often very important and a ‘fact’ to the individual who experienced it, it’s validity or usefulness for anyone else can be questioned. Scientific ‘facts’ however stand outside of the observer and are therefore useful to us all.