Open Or Closed Mind part2
October 22nd 2007 04:41
There are many different kinds of people in the world. Some people enjoy arguements, some people don't. I'm neither. I like a good arguement, but an unnecessary one is simply irritating.
The arguement I may try to start now, or at least, continue now, is that atheists and theists are open and closed minded in different areas. The interesting thing about arguing, is that most arguements are not begun on our differences, but on the similarity that we all share. That both parties believe that they are right. On the basis that I think I may be right, I think I can only continue if I am prepared to think that I am at least on the right track, but still have a way to go.
Mr Musal has stated that it takes a disregard of reality to believe in God. I disagree. It takes a greater regard and consideration of reality to think that there may be more to it than my rather simple perceptions. Thousands of years ago, we knew the earth was on the back of a turtle. Hundreds of years ago, we knew it was flat. Know we know it is round. Do you wonder what shape it may be tomorrow? We look and look, but with our minds, not with our eyes. Aristotle wrote about the authority of the senses, and St Thomas Aquinas fought for the fact that both spiritual truth and physical truth must align. There are those christians that say that christianity is the great contradiction of the world. I disagree with that. I believe that christianity is the great paradox of the world. I believe that either an open or closed mind could perhaps except it, a well guarded mind is required in order to develop it.
Dusk wrote that it is perhaps the atheist that has the more open of minds, that it has no boundaries on which to work. She also wrote that they are open minded except where God is concerned, which is where they are very close minded. Which I guess goes with the job description. It's interesting to think that if one where to truly believe that one was never to be held accountable for one's actions, then whatever one did cannot be judged at all. T.S. Elliott once said that if you would not have God then you would have Stalin or Hitler. A society based on a merely human scale of judgement, ethics and morality would only end up closing minds and shrinking thoughts.
And I don't think anyone wants that.
I also think however that my own thinking is perhaps somewhat naieve. A scientist may well be able to say that my existence is a collection of atomical connections and neurological impulses. Who indeed am I to insist that this is not good enough for me?
JZ
The arguement I may try to start now, or at least, continue now, is that atheists and theists are open and closed minded in different areas. The interesting thing about arguing, is that most arguements are not begun on our differences, but on the similarity that we all share. That both parties believe that they are right. On the basis that I think I may be right, I think I can only continue if I am prepared to think that I am at least on the right track, but still have a way to go.
Mr Musal has stated that it takes a disregard of reality to believe in God. I disagree. It takes a greater regard and consideration of reality to think that there may be more to it than my rather simple perceptions. Thousands of years ago, we knew the earth was on the back of a turtle. Hundreds of years ago, we knew it was flat. Know we know it is round. Do you wonder what shape it may be tomorrow? We look and look, but with our minds, not with our eyes. Aristotle wrote about the authority of the senses, and St Thomas Aquinas fought for the fact that both spiritual truth and physical truth must align. There are those christians that say that christianity is the great contradiction of the world. I disagree with that. I believe that christianity is the great paradox of the world. I believe that either an open or closed mind could perhaps except it, a well guarded mind is required in order to develop it.
Dusk wrote that it is perhaps the atheist that has the more open of minds, that it has no boundaries on which to work. She also wrote that they are open minded except where God is concerned, which is where they are very close minded. Which I guess goes with the job description. It's interesting to think that if one where to truly believe that one was never to be held accountable for one's actions, then whatever one did cannot be judged at all. T.S. Elliott once said that if you would not have God then you would have Stalin or Hitler. A society based on a merely human scale of judgement, ethics and morality would only end up closing minds and shrinking thoughts.
And I don't think anyone wants that.
I also think however that my own thinking is perhaps somewhat naieve. A scientist may well be able to say that my existence is a collection of atomical connections and neurological impulses. Who indeed am I to insist that this is not good enough for me?
JZ
| 37 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
In terms of what atheists believe 'open minded' involves only being limited by science and its consequent ethical laws it may set down. The problem is science is not an issue of morality or ethics, it's a study of objective facts free of societies own prejudices or expectations. To that end you cannot build a moral system through science, it just doesn't gel, yet you can use it to help aid in the decision making process of what should be accepted and what should be taboo.
Atheists are not actually 'open minded', or at least in a sense they are no more open minded than a religous type. They believe they are right, that science is the way to go and they want to push forward that agenda. It's no different than a christian trying to turn a country into a christian state, 'seperation of church and state' is in fact just an atheist type country, much like a state where church is interwined is, well, a religous type country.
There has to be some leeway given to both sides, church and state can only ever be as seperate as voters would want it to be. Atheists have no right to say church and state has to be seperate much like christians have no right to say that church and state has to be one. It can go one way or the other, it's just a matter of elections that decide.
Having said that there have to be governing laws that ensure no religou sminority is needlessly villified which is why we have the constitution. Any leader of any religous background cannot outlaw another religion or group of people. The constitution is the founding laws that cannot be ignored, if the constitution says anyone can be of any religion then great. However that doesnt imply church and state have to be seperate, thats a matter of elections.
In the end there is no one who is 'open minded', you can claim to be 'open minded' but it seems that the ones who are most desperate to grab that title also tend to be the most violent. This is true with every religous group and atheists. There is no 'open minded' person on earth, theres 'my opinion' and theres 'your opinion', the only point at which my opinion can be better than yours is when my opinion stands truer to the direct words of the founding laws of the country, and not some abstract understanding of it, a direct, literal trasnlation. So if you say 'homosexuals have no rights and are not human' and I reply 'no they're human, they just have different lifestyles' my opinion is in fact superior to yours because the constituion makes no difference between a homosexual and a straight person. However if I say 'church and state have to be seperate because the constitution says that there should be no differing between religion' and you reply that 'you can't decide who we vote for just because they are religous, you're taking an abstract view of the constitution. Just because it says that anyone can run for office irrespective of religous background does not mean it is implying church and state have to be seperate'.
The constitution of any country has to be seen clearly and umambigously with nothing but literal translations. All things implied should be ignored in the text and providing the text itself is clear and defined you have th efoundations of a great country already. Just follow it through, don't claim superiority based on religous group and build laws on top of the constitution and thats it. Nothing to do with 'open mindedness', it's all empty rhetoric, no different to saying 'I'm better than you because I've accepted jesus christ as my saviour'.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Bigotry is rife with atheists who on one hand my claim to just want to get by in life then next thing insult people or belittle differing viewpoints. They are only 'open minded' to their own views much like any other person of a different religion seems to be 'open minded' to his or her views only and exclusively.
I've seen Richard Dawkins first hand who gave an interview on CNN (I think) saying that atheists just want to live and let live, yet he's the author of 'The God Delusion' in which he essentially argues 'because religion produces extremists the world would be better without religion because such radicals wouldn't exist'. In essence he doesn't want to just 'get by', he's like religous fundamentalists in that he wants to see an end to religion (i.e. people with differing opinions to his) and believes that will make the world a better place.
It gets painful when you put your own views in perspective, for instance, if indeed what Dawkins says should carry merit then science should also be banned because it created the atomic bomb. When thought of like that you find there is this inherint paradox in what people say when talking about themselves and their self superiority that goes through all religions and belief systems.
You can't argue your views are superior to someone elses without those same arguments being used more or less against you for why someone else is better than you.
I guess we all just want to be 'right' and be the 'luckiest' for believing in the one true truth. Because of that we can't seem to let go of the fact other people also think they are the luckiest for thinking more or less in the same way we do.