Are you open-minded? [video]

[Scaredgirl]

This video is not only about religious beliefs, but most things it talks about I've seen happen more than once on this forum section. Some of the fallacious arguments mentioned can be seen here almost on a daily basis. I really recommend that everyone watches this short video because it explains very well what being open-minded really means.

Enjoy.

[Xenocidius]

Fascinating video. Excellent find.

I think I'm open minded (note how I'm not stating that I'm open minded factually ).

[Kuroaitou]

This is by far one of the MOST enlightening videos I've seen posted in this forum.

That said, I guess I have to work on the part around 7:50 or something; the main reason why I avoid this forum altogether (for the most part) is usually because I usually can't figure out how to distinguish what's considered to be good or poor evidence for a certain set of beliefs, because I don't have access to that information (or that I'm too lazy to really dive into the topic). And because of that, I'm more or less a sponge for trying to absorb new ideas, only to have to replace them constantly because my mind keeps going back and forth without any real stance on what's logically correct. ^^;

Thanks again SG.

[darkrobe]

i think ive seen this somewhere. lol

[OldTrees]

Good video. I haven't seen that one in a while.

It points out that it is not closed minded to hold onto a previous belief in the lack of counter evidence. This is the strongest defense of Religion/Strong Atheistism I have ever heard and a reasonably harsh criticism of attempts to change people's previous beliefs without relevant evidence.

[Kakerlake]

Awesome stuff. Thanks for sharing.

I am open-minded and I don't listen to anyone who tells me otherwise. So as no one can give me proof that I'm not open-minded, I truly am open-minded xD

[Scaredgirl]

Good video. I haven't seen that one in a while.

It points out that it is not closed minded to hold onto a previous belief in the lack of counter evidence. This is the strongest defense of Religion/Strong Atheistism I have ever heard and a reasonably harsh criticism of attempts to change people's previous beliefs without relevant evidence.

I don't know if we were watching the same video but the one up there is pretty far from the "strongest defense of Religion". It even says there in the beginning: "Not only does believing in certain non-scientific concepts NOT automatically make you open-minded, it can often lead you to be the complete opposite.". The person who made that video is a known atheist. I wouldn't call his videos 'Anti-Religion', but they are definitely not defending religious beliefs or way of thinking, and I cannot see how you would interpret it like that.

What the video does is basically divide people into 3 groups:

1. People who are open-minded but have an 'evidence filter' to sort out true claims from false ones. (scientific method)

2. People who are open-minded, but lack the evidence filter. These people basically believe any supernatural story you tell them without having to present a single piece of evidence. They are what could be called 'gullible' and their understanding of reality is pretty random. If you go to any new age fair or other gathering, you will find tons of people with this way of thinking.

3. People who first accept false ideas uncritically, then close their mind from anything that contradicts those ideas, even when the evidence in overwhelming. A good example of this group would be religious people who follow the Bible and do not believe in evolution. They commonly say: "if evolution happened, where is the proof?". The thing is that there are a million pieces of evidence for evolution but they are refusing to study that evidence because it contradicts their current world view. They are not really interested in finding the truth, they only want evidence that backs up their current views. That's the definition of closed-mindedness, and a lot of religious people belong to this category.

[OldTrees]

Good video. I haven't seen that one in a while.

It points out that it is not closed minded to hold onto a previous belief in the lack of counter evidence. This is the strongest defense of Religion/Strong Atheistism I have ever heard and a reasonably harsh criticism of attempts to change people's previous beliefs without relevant evidence.

I don't know if we were watching the same video but the one up there is pretty far from the "strongest defense of Religion". It even says there in the beginning: "Not only does believing in certain non-scientific concepts NOT automatically make you open-minded, it can often lead you to be the complete opposite.". The person who made that video is a known atheist. I wouldn't call his videos 'Anti-Religion', but they are definitely not defending religious beliefs or way of thinking, and I cannot see how you would interpret it like that.

What the video does is basically divide people into 3 groups:

1. People who are open-minded but have an 'evidence filter' to sort out true claims from false ones. (scientific method)

2. People who are open-minded, but lack the evidence filter. These people basically believe any supernatural story you tell them without having to present a single piece of evidence. They are what could be called 'gullible' and their understanding of reality is pretty random. If you go to any new age fair or other gathering, you will find tons of people with this way of thinking.

3. People who first accept false ideas uncritically, then close their mind from anything that contradicts those ideas, even when the evidence in overwhelming. A good example of this group would be religious people who follow the Bible and do not believe in evolution. They commonly say: "if evolution happened, where is the proof?". The thing is that there are a million pieces of evidence for evolution but they are refusing to study that evidence because it contradicts their current world view. They are not really interested in finding the truth, they only want evidence that backs up their current views. That's the definition of closed-mindedness, and a lot of religious people belong to this category.

Indeed it does sort people into those 3 groups and it criticizes groups 2 and 3. However both Religion and Strong Atheism can be of group 1. People start with their spiritual beliefs before they can be fully rational (a recent thread). Those that then put an evidence filter on those beliefs and permit relevant evidence to change their opinions are open minded. Some topics like philosophy have rather scarce evidence. This makes it reasonable for people to hold onto those beliefs in the absence of counter evidence rather than uncritically accepting new beliefs on that topic. However this still would not excuse them if they did hold onto those beliefs in the face of counter evidence.

From my position of disrespecting my own beliefs on the topic, that is the strongest defense made yet for those beliefs.

Note: A defense of Religion/Strong Atheism is not necessarily a defense of Christianity.

[Nepycros]

Qualiasoup is my idol.

[Scaredgirl]

Indeed it does sort people into those 3 groups and it criticizes groups 2 and 3. However both Religion and Strong Atheism can be of group 1. People start with their spiritual beliefs before they can be fully rational (a recent thread). Those that then put an evidence filter on those beliefs and permit relevant evidence to change their opinions are open minded. Some topics like philosophy have rather scarce evidence. This makes it reasonable for people to hold onto those beliefs in the absence of counter evidence rather than uncritically accepting new beliefs on that topic. However this still would not excuse them if they did hold onto those beliefs in the face of counter evidence.

From my position of disrespecting my own beliefs on the topic, that is the strongest defense made yet for those beliefs.

Note: A defense of Religion/Strong Atheism is not necessarily a defense of Christianity.

Although it is in theory possible that a religious person belongs to group 1, many of them do not. As soon as a person starts to ignore contradicting evidence and continues to believe in a supernatural event, they no longer belong to group 1 because their 'evidence filter' is simply not working and blocks out overwhelming evidence. The idea of the 'evidence filter' is not to block out all the evidence you personally do not like because science is not about cherry-picking evidence you like, and ignore evidence you do not like.

Evolution is a perfect example of this. If you do not believe in evolution because of your religion, and ignore all the contradicting scientific evidence, you show close-mindedness because the evidence is there but you just refuse to accept it. Evolution has become such a widely-accepted theory in the field of science that the discussion is no more about if it happened or not, the discussion is merely about how it happened.

So if a person does not believe in evolution, or thinks that the world is less than 10,000 years old, that person is automatically close-minded when it comes to scientific evidence. It's the equivalent of not believing in theory of gravity.

[OldTrees]

Indeed it does sort people into those 3 groups and it criticizes groups 2 and 3. However both Religion and Strong Atheism can be of group 1. People start with their spiritual beliefs before they can be fully rational (a recent thread). Those that then put an evidence filter on those beliefs and permit relevant evidence to change their opinions are open minded. Some topics like philosophy have rather scarce evidence. This makes it reasonable for people to hold onto those beliefs in the absence of counter evidence rather than uncritically accepting new beliefs on that topic. However this still would not excuse them if they did hold onto those beliefs in the face of counter evidence.

From my position of disrespecting my own beliefs on the topic, that is the strongest defense made yet for those beliefs.

Note: A defense of Religion/Strong Atheism is not necessarily a defense of Christianity.

Although it is in theory possible that a religious person belongs to group 1, many of them do not. As soon as a person starts to ignore contradicting evidence and continues to believe in a supernatural event, they no longer belong to group 1 because their 'evidence filter' is simply not working and blocks out overwhelming evidence. The idea of the 'evidence filter' is not to block out all the evidence you personally do not like because science is not about cherry-picking evidence you like, and ignore evidence you do not like.

Evolution is a perfect example of this. If you do not believe in evolution because of your religion, and ignore all the contradicting scientific evidence, you show close-mindedness because the evidence is there but you just refuse to accept it. Evolution has become such a widely-accepted theory in the field of science that the discussion is no more about if it happened or not, the discussion is merely about how it happened.

So if a person does not believe in evolution, or thinks that the world is less than 10,000 years old, that person is automatically close-minded when it comes to scientific evidence. It's the equivalent of not believing in theory of gravity.

The defense presented of Strong Atheism/Religion:
In theory and practice it is possible for a theist/strong atheist to be in group 1.
Group 1 is not inherently invalid.
Therefore those positions are not inherently invalid.

Sidenote:
As a student of genetics, I must point out that evolution is typically not understood by those that disbelieve it and science does not promote appeals to authority as evidence. Not understanding Evolution makes the evidence for Evolution not appear as evidence for Evolution or not appear as conclusive. A theory being widely believed my biologists is an appeal to authority. Their data is the relevant evidence not their conclusions regardless of how accurate they are. Therefore I would classify most people that disbelieve Evolution as not having been exposed to counter evidence yet due to their ignorance.

[Cheesy111]

I interpreted this video as more of a support to Weak than Strong Atheism.  Strong atheism suggests that there cannot be a god, while this video suggests that that is only possible if that god has inherently contradicting qualities.  While some gods do have logically contradicting qualities, some do not, and thus I would hesitate to say that the video strengthens arguments for strong atheism.

Just to make sure I'm not messing up my research/saying things I don't mean, here is what I consider weak/strong atheism(both explicit):
Weak atheism - No belief that there is a god
Strong atheism - Belief that there cannot be a god