You're SO closed-minded!
Requiring evidence before believing something surprising is not the same as being closed-minded, is it? I would like to think that I can look at the world and consider all the possible explanations about how it came to be this way.
I happen to find it interesting first to consider the explanations that are based on all the human observations that have been made so far. Critical thinking actually demands an open mind. It is absolutely necessary to be able to consider the possibility of new options. If I can't understand the world on this scientific basis, then perhaps I would have to consider other options on the basis of their merits, and one option is that we do not yet know the answer. Falling back on supernatural explanations is very much a last resort for me though.
Many Christians do not do the same. They fail to look at the conflicting evidence and counter arguments against their position, and by doing that I feel that they are missing so much of the beauty of the world.
If you honestly use the argument that non-believers are closed-minded, then I can only quote Christopher Hitchens who said to someone who asked a silly question
"You give the awful impression of someone who has not read any of the arguments against your position ever."
|An open mind accepts new ideas!|
This accusation is one that I find very hard to understand. I'm assuming that this is the opposite of open-minded, but assumptions like this do not always work when talking with theists. The sands of logic shift much too often.
I am so closed-minded that, as a former Christian, I opened my mind and dared to consider the possibility that there is no God. The more I explore these ideas, the more I am convinced that there are no other deities either. I still consider the question to be an open one. However, I think the probability that I will see any convincing evidence that makes me change my mind back is vanishingly small. I'm a fir 6.9 on the Dawkins' seven point scale.
I have gone from being a lazy, closed-minded Christian to being an open-minded atheist very comfortably and without trauma. I can only recommend it!
Do supernatural options fit into the set of possible explanations though? For me, no, not really. The reason for this is that it seems to be an intellectually lazy option. "I can't personally work out how that happened . . . so it must have been God!" doesn't explain anything at all. Such an explanation requires an explanation in itself.
|Cogito ergo non ovis - not a sheep!|
Last week: You can't prove there is no god
Next week: The bible is totally scientific!