Keith Devens .com

I was with you right up until the last paragraph. Blank calls for "open mindedness" are indeed pretty daft because it's a very fuzzy term and not really a concept with a set definition. However, I would argue that being "God minded" in the way you describe is very much a close-minded attitude, because you are automatically ruling out ideas that don't fit in with a evangelical (is that the right term?) Christian view point. But then as a hardened atheist I would say that

Well Keith, we both know that you and I rarely agree on matters of religion and politics (even if I am planning to vote Republican in November)...

That said, what you wrote above is one of the most poignant observations I've ever seen you, or most others, make in a long time. In fact, I agree entirely, as surprising as that is to me.

Kudos.

Simon, it takes balls to use "close minded" as a criticism in response to this post I'd say you're as close minded towards my Christianity (and everything it implies) as I am towards your atheism (and everything it implies).

Great post--definitely something I agree with. Most people seem to be "open-minded" only until they've closed it onto something that matches their existing beliefs.

That said, I think that what is really needed is understanding, not "open-mindedness". The more that people try to understand one another, listen to what they say and walk a mile in their shoes, if you will, the better we will become as human beings. Sure, we'll still disagree on things, but at least we can respect the thoughts and feelings of others.

Of course, then I look around at the world around me and realize that this is much easier to say than to do, myself included (I'm only human ). So many people seem to thrive on enmity bred by misunderstanding--or even a refusal to understand. But at least recognizing it is a start, I'd say.

Kudos, Keith. And kudos to Simon and Nathaniel too. I agree: this is definitely one of your best posts yet!

"We should be tolerant of what God is tolerant of, we should hate passionately what God hates, and we should love passionately what God loves."

And what's on God's tolerance, love & hate lists right now?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic but I certainly don't know God's position on things as they stand right now.

Does he have an email list or RSS feed?
(Yes that part was sarcasm.)

Does he have an email list or RSS feed?

No, but he wrote a book explaining his positions on things.

No.
Many people contributed to a book over a long period of time referencing God's (I've never seen God as a him or her) alleged positions on things. But my problem with the book is that it appears to have become abandonware.

Though it carries some very useful information dealing with living amongst other people, the world it was aimed at when it was written no longer exists. We have complex problems in our time which just didn't exist when Moses came down from Sinai tablets in hand or many other situations in the bible.

Though I strongly believe in God, not religion, I've come to believe that we're working from texts that haven't been seriously updated in far too long, and whenever they have been tinkered with it was usually driven by avarice or will to power to suit some very mortal vested interests.

God reserves the right to change God's mind, I don't think we've done a good job letting people know that, and I don't think God has let us know how he thinks we're doing in a real long time. If we're doing badly, then judging by the great flood, or the nuking of Sodom & Gomorrha, I'd guess we'll be the last to know.

And now you have me referring to God as a he.
You're a menace Devens. ;-)

No, but he wrote a book explaining his positions on things.

Reminds me of the kind of the dictation alluded to in this most heretical parody

I certainly agree that veracity of belief is more important than open mindedness -- and one further, I'd say it's much more important than consistency. It is better to be partly right but inconsistent, than to be completely wrong and consistent. Consistency is something based on rational thought, but people don't base their ethics on rationality -- rationality can be an important guide when deciding how to act upon basic values, but it's not the root. I think this is empirically true -- people rationalize their ethics, but rationality is just a guise. But I'd also say it's good, because people who worship rationality and self-consistency tend to have idiotic ideas (like Objectivism). Or maybe it's just idiots who are drawn to those labels and philosophies. But Objectivism slamming is a digression...

I think there is an important idea that lies parrallel to open mindedness -- the role of authority in thought. I think intellectual submission to authority is wrong. The tradition I come from is a Quaker one, and this is very important to their practice. (I bring this up specifically because it is a Christian model of anti-authoritarianism, and you bring up God.) In the Quaker tradition there's the belief in personal revelation, and a personal connection between an individual and God. If a truth is revealed to you (be it through faith or reflection) that supercedes all else -- it supercedes the tradition itself, your parents, your elders, and the Bible. In the Universalist (unprogrammed/Eastern) tradition, there is no minister and no preaching in a Quaker service, just a time of quiet reflection (and if you are so inspired, you may share your thoughts and reflections).

At the time of Quakerism's inception, this was a quite revolutionary idea for which Quakers were persecuted. It was in many ways a reaction to the Puritans. (As an aside, there's no relation between Quakers and the Amish or Mennonites, who come from a different time and lineage.)

I think this offers a model of religious open mindedness -- or more importantly, of a system where an individual asserts a moral standard, they do not passively receive a standard. At the same time, the conclusions are far reaching: there are many atheist Quakers, and you can find yourself a long ways from Christianity (though most Quakers are solidly Christian, and many might even seem fundamentalist in their beliefs). It's also philosophically (and practically) challenging, because it requires that we respect each others opinions even in the face of disagreements, even if we sincerely believe the other person is wrong. Tolerance is challenging. This is where we must see ethical actions as more important than ethical belief, and certainly more important than consistency -- between two people there may not be consistency, but there is empathy and compassion.

Anarchism contains many of the same ideas, but not based upon religion.

I've always considered the term "open-minded" to describe the quality where a person is willing to admit that he might possibly be wrong and is willing to evaluate other possibilities considered as a whole to see if actually make sense too.

An extremely simplistic example would be three people spotting a correlation between A and B; one person insists that A causes B, the second insists that B causes A, and a third person insists that some unknown C causes both of them. Close-minded people will not admit that the other people could have possibly valid points just because, in absence of further proof, their own way isn't definitely incorrect. But of course, with only the given information that there's a correlation between A and B, any three choices could be potentially correct. I consider open-mindedness the trait that allows a person to recognize this.

Thus, sometimes an open-minded person will seem very wishy-washy in his actions since he may try to hedge his bets on which answer is the actual correct one.

When I say "willing to evaluate other possibilities as a whole", I mean that an open-minded person does not fight every step of the way when being introduced to an alternative idea. A perspective is often very complex; just as it would be close-minded to consider individual verses, chapters or even books of the Bible out of context to lay judgment on the whole of Christian scripture, I consider it close-minded when a person dismisses a complex idea for small reasons. At the very least, it's extremely frustrating to have to shove down every single point one at a time, when it be far clearer if they'd take it all in at a time. Even if the exact idea may not be correct, there may be some merit in the other person's perspective.

The problem with accusing someone of being "close minded" is that it's an indefensible label. How can you prove "open minded-ness"?

Ian, excellent comment. You've touched on what I think is the central issue in a worldview. I've been really busy and I must go to bed so I can wake up in around 5 hours, but I hope I can write something in response to your comment tomorrow.

caiuschen, that's exactly what "open-minded" means. I get the impression that many people think it means that the person holds a particular type of beliefs, rather than their attitude towards their beliefs.

Ian, apparently you 'respect others opinions even though you may sincerely believe them to be wrong'. How does that fit in with the end of your opening paragraph? Read again:

But I'd also say it's good, because people who worship rationality and self-consistency tend to have idiotic ideas (like Objectivism). Or maybe it's just idiots who are drawn to those labels and philosophies.<

Another hypocrital Christian. /me yawns.

BTW, 'veracity of belief' and 'open mindedness' are not mutually exclusive. The former is, however, much more dangerous. Tolerance is a defining element of open mindedness. How many religious wars would have been not fought, had each side been more tolerant of the others 'veracity of belief'?

s.oteric: good point. So, a clarification: I respect some people, and some opinions, that I disagree with. But not all: there are both people and ideas that I absolutely disagree with, and for which I have no respect. (And really, though I find Objectivism to be a bit obnoxious, it isn't abhorent.) To respect all opinions and people is to have no sense of justice.

My boyfriend also accused me of being closed minded.
for instance he is a personal trainer and we been having problems cause at one point in time he was getting involve with his clients and i knew it. to this day he still denies it. now out of no where he told me that he to go into massage therphy field. so i explain to him that i aint going to be with no man that goes to his clients house to give them massages. now he is telling me that i am closed minded and i show be open minded to what he said. now he states that a massage therpy and strech therapy is the same thing.... can someone help me out here am i wrong for being closed minded like he states i am. i just believe he just wants me to be a fool, shut up and deal with it

Christians are often accused of being "closed minded".

I don't know your definition of "Christian", nor that of the people from whom you hear this. I do know that a lot of fundamentalist Christians consider their sects to be the only kind of Christianity, and I would certainly say that it is fair to call fundamendalist Christians (or fundamentalists of any religion) closed-minded.

Fundamendalists take it as a point of pride not to let facts interfere with their beliefs. The bumper sticker "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." perhaps sums this up best.

The Jesuits, for counterexample, strike me as a very open-minded Christian sect. My impression is that they are always questioning, always testing their beliefs. It's something I respect.

Fundamendalists take it as a point of pride not to let facts interfere with their beliefs. The bumper sticker "God said it. I believe it. And that settles it." perhaps sums this up best.

That's inaccurate. The point is, if God is who they say He is, then all facts will necessarily agree with the Bible^[1]. I think you'd be really hard pressed to find a Christian who would say "Sure, the facts of reality disagree with what the Bible says (or entails), but I believe the Bible anyway because God said it".

I would certainly say that it is fair to call fundamendalist Christians (or fundamentalists of any religion) closed-minded.

Well, again, the whole point of this post was to point out that you can't just go ahead and use "closed-minded" as if it actually means something! Is anyone who believes that they know the truth about something closed-minded? Does "open-minded", to you, simply indicate a willingness to evaluate facts "objectively"? If the former, I might respond that it's "closed-minded" to assume that the truth can't be known. If the latter, then what does "objectively" mean? For instance, to you does "objectively" mean "interpreted without reference to the Bible"? If so, you're begging the question about the truth of Christianity. To exclude it from the outset like that would certainly be "closed-minded".

This gets me back to the point. Ultimately, one has a worldview that tells him what is and isn't possible and in terms of which he evaluates reality. When you get back to this level of discussion you can fruitfully talk about facts and worldviews rather than just throwing around vague words like "closed-minded" or "open-minded".

I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian. You may consider me "closed-minded", but I disagree. I say, show me an alternative system that can account for reality and make our experience intelligible. In other words, prove me wrong, don't throw around epithets -- which is what they really amount to -- like "closed-minded".

Footnotes:
[1]: Keep in mind that that's a different thing than one's interpretation of the Bible -- people can certainly have wrong interpretations.

Hi Lydia,

I just was reminded of your comment. It deserves a response:

now he is telling me that i am closed minded and i show be open minded to what he said... am i wrong for being closed minded like he states i am.

The point of my post is that the terms "open-minded" and "closed-minded" don't really mean anything. Your boyfriend's use of the words is very much what I wanted to address. Make him flesh them out. Ask him, "When you say I'm closed-minded, what do you mean by that? You seem to mean that I should accept that my boyfriend give massages to other women (who will probably be naked!)." Then you can explain that you disagree.

This discussion won't necessarily resolve your disagreement, but at least you'll be able to talk about what you actually disagree about rather than throwing around the word "closed-minded". That's supremely unhelpful; it puts you on the defensive and serves to take the focus away from what's really at issue.

That's inaccurate. The point is, if God is who they say He is, then all facts will necessarily agree with the Bible[1]. I think you'd be really hard pressed to find a Christian who would say "Sure, the facts of reality disagree with what the Bible says (or entails), but I believe the Bible anyway because God said it".

I apologize. Let's replace "fact" with "observation" - are you comfortable with this statement:

Fundamendalists take it as a point of pride not to let observations interfere with their beliefs.

If so, let's carry on the conversation from there. Yes, to me "open-minded" means willing to let one's understanding of what is true, factual, be affected by new data. You're a programmer, too, so maybe we can tackle it from that less contentious perspective.

If I've just written a program, and I "know" it works, then if I am closed-minded when a user tells me there's a bug, I can't really help. To be a responsible programmer, to provide service to the people I'm trying to serve, I have to accept the possibility that I'm wrong, that the program I thought was working is actually in error. It may not be, but there's no point just telling that to the user. If I accept the possibility, explore the user's report, try to duplicate the problem, I will either discover that there is in fact a bug or discover that (eg) the user failed to understand something (ignoring for purposes of discussion the bugs we're never able to explain). Either way, I've done some good for the user, found a way to make the program work for her. Humility is the only useful way to approach such a problem, the kind of humility that says, "my knowledge may be incomplete". That is what I mean by open-mindedness, and I hope you will agree with me about its value in at least this limited scope. If so, we can continue the discussion about its value in more contentious scopes; if not, let's pin this down.

are you comfortable with this statement... Fundamendalists take it as a point of pride not to let observations interfere with their beliefs.

You seem to have an assumption that fundamentalists believe that their observations (or previously, facts) contradict their held beliefs.

Essentially, all observations are interpreted within some framework (our worldview). The conclusions we draw are not based on observations as such, but on our interpretations of those observations. To pick a more contentious example than programming , think of evolution. Different people look at the fossil record and see different things. I look at what we know about the fossil record and see absolutely no evidence for evolution. Others look at the fossil record and say "of course, this is evidence for evolution". Still others look at the fossil record and say "nope, unfortunately this doesn't show gradual evolution, as was expected, at all. So, evolution must have happened this way...". It's important to point out that not all fundamentalists are "religious" fundamentalists.

Also, drawing conclusions about your worldview is essentially not the same as drawing conclusions about whether or not your program has a bug. To draw one distinction between the two at an obvious level, there is no ethical component to the correctness of your program, but worldviews are foundationally ethical. But, and this is a fundamental philosophical point, while many things in our experience can be approached through direct appeal to evidence^[1], worldviews are the very things we use to interpret the evidence we come in contact with. Therefore, worldviews are in a logical sense prior to evidence and are not directly chosen based on evidence. Rather, worldviews are chosen "indirectly" based on other factors. To change worldviews requires making an ethical or psychological "paradigm shift", not merely an ordinary decision based on evidence. If done rationally, one chooses his worldview according to what can make sense of the world and provide the "preconditions for the intelligibility of our experience".

So, to get more back to the topic of "closed-mindedness" or "open-mindedness":

Humility is the only useful way to approach such a problem, the kind of humility that says, "my knowledge may be incomplete". That is what I mean by open-mindedness, and I hope you will agree with me about its value in at least this limited scope.

If all you mean by open-mindedness is humility, and all you mean by closed-mindedness is arrogance, you should use those words in the first place. That at least steers the discussion in a more useful direction. Like I've stated repeatedly, "closed-minded" and "open-minded" are so vague that they're worse than useless for a discussion. Something like "you seem unwilling to look at these facts rationally" is way more helpful than "you're so closed-minded", because at that point the discussion turns to what really is rational to believe and what the facts really are about the topic at hand.

This make sense? Anyway, I'm not quite sure where our discussion is now, and I'm not quite sure whether I've addressed what you're trying to get at. So, feel free to take the discussion wherever you want, if you want. I enjoy talking about these things - it makes me think.

Footnotes:
[1]: However, it's important to note that even in the history of science (something that's supposed to be objective and ideologically neutral), scientific worldviews dominate how science is done and what conclusions are drawn based on observation.

Also, drawing conclusions about your worldview is essentially not the same as drawing conclusions about whether or not your program has a bug.

I disagree. Perhaps that's my worldview.

I hold beliefs, concepts that I consider to correspond to reality. My belief that a program works is the same - for me - as my belief that evolution explains the diversity of life on our planet. The same as my belief that the sun will rise in the sky tomorrow, the same as my belief that the sun is not actually rising, but that it appears to be because of the rotation of our planet - something else I believe. What you say about worldview is no less true about the spinning planet (just realized the unintentional wordplay), no less true - for me - about the working program. Each belief - including mistaken ones - has facts to support it and a worldview that provides context for it.

You say there is no ethical component to belief in my program's correctness. Well, OK. Leave ethics out of it. Did we evolve or were we created? This is a fact with, as you point out, observable ramifications.

Ethics only enters into a concept when you impute a "should". I hold ethical beliefs, and I agree that they have differences from strictly factual beliefs. I believe I should be honest. I belive I should be kind. I believe you should, too.

Perhaps that is the difference in our worldviews - what we consider to be in the ethical versus factual domain. I place the question of origins firmly in the factual category; you evidently place it just as firmly in the ethical cagegory.

And maybe this explains why creationists and evolutionists are constantly talking at cross purposes. We all, I suspect, agree that "should" questions don't have "fact" answers, but my side points at facts and yours points at shoulds.

Essentially, all observations are interpreted within some framework (our worldview). The conclusions we draw are not based on observations as such, but on our interpretations of those observations

Look, my software analysis also takes place in the context of my worldview - if you don't like to think of that as a worldview, then let's just say in the context of how I think about programs. And I stand by what I said before: if I approach it with what I call closed-mindedness, I will be less effective at my job than if I approach it with what I call open-mindedness. That attitiude occupies an ethical dimension - I should be open-minded - and it affects how I interact with new information and how well I do my job.

If all you mean by open-mindedness is humility, and all you mean by closed-mindedness is arrogance, you should use those words in the first place.

I quite agree. That's why I use the terms "open-mindedness" and "closed-mindedness." Open-mindedness is a form of humility, but not every form of humility is open-mindedness. Open-mindedness is the form of humility that represents an awareness that we may be wrong. As a counter-example, obedience to authority is another form of humility that has nothing to do with open-mindedness.

I don't know where we are going with this discussion, either. I'm interested to understand what goes on in your mind (I'm sorry, that sounds like it's making you a lab animal and I don't mean to do that); you seem like an uncommonly articulate fundamentalist and you are already giving me some new insights into the nature of the dispute between creationists and evolutionists, a topic that has long interested me. I don't know what you want to get out of this discussion.

Frankly, I would also like to "bring you 'round" to my way of thinking of things; I want to be up front about that, not sneaky. I don't expect to succeed in it, and it's honestly only a secondary interest.

So, Keith, what do you think? Is it fair to separate all issues as belonging entirely to the factual, or entirely to the ethical domain? Or are there other domains, or issues that bridge both? I've thought about this for a few days, and I haven't been able to come up with anything simple that I think belongs in both domains.

I have the feeling from some of your earlier comments that you think some issues fall into both domains. Do you have an example I'll find persuasive?

Thanks.

Hi Carl, sorry for the delay. I'm not going to respond in full right now... I'm busy until tomorrow evening, but I'll make some comments now. You misunderstood what I meant when I said worldviews are foundationally ethical. I meant that I think that, at base, we choose our worldviews for ethical reasons, and then rationalize those decisions. That's not to say that our worldviews are chosen completely independently from reason, or that worldviews cannot be chosen rationally, or that there are no rational reasons to choose one worldview over the other. Importantly, this pertains mostly to how I believe we go about choosing our worldviews, not necessarily to all the content of our worldviews.

You asked about the "domains" that issues fall into. All aspects of philosophy and worldviews are intertwined. For instance, we don't choose our metaphysic and then choose our epistemology or choose our epistemology and then choose our metaphysic. Rather, our metaphysic is determined by our epistemology and our epistemology is determined by our metaphysic. They have to be decided together. You can't discuss what exists independently of how you know it exists, or vice versa. And I believe all philosophy (and probably everything at all) has an ethical dimension to it.

That's it - I gotta run for now. I'm disappointed I spent much of Monday debating this guy Andre over here about Roman Catholicism (actually, I'm not quite sure what he was arguing). I would much rather have argued (in the good sense) with you. Honestly, I might have responded already if we weren't at the "hump" part of the conversation... it always happens: there are a lot of issues floating around, each response gets longer then the last, maybe I'm not quite sure how I want to respond to some things, and because of all that it takes SO long to write a response, so I often put it off. Plus, I'm really anal about saying things publicly so it takes me a long time to say things. I force myself to choose my words much more carefully than maybe I would if the discussion was in private over IM or by e-mail (though even then I'm overly careful).

Anyway, I'll try to get back to you about the rest tomorrow or earlier.

Whew! That whole Catholicism discussion is beyond me. OK, glad you haven't dropped this thread; take your time.

Just one request for this thread - please keep the terms as simple, as common, as you can manage. "Epistemology," "metaphysic," and even "foundationally" are stretching my limits. If we need the terms, well, so be it, but I think my questions are simpler than this and I would like to keep this discussion at that level. To me these are simple issues (difficult, but simple), and I can ask the questions without resorting to sesquipedalians, so I hope you can answer without them.

Maybe I'm wrong about how simple it is, and advanced concepts and terms are needed to explain it to me. OK, but please try to avoid 'em if you can.

Thanks.

God say's. [12] "Behold,I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give everyman according as his work shall be.
[13] I am Al'pha and O-me'ga, the beginning and end, the first and last.
[14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of light, and enter in through the gates into the city.(REVELATATION CHAPTER 22).

What ever we go through in life. Remember Jesus has gone through it a million times more.

May God bless you.x

Sorry i just noticed i made a spelling mistake.
Should of read.
[14]Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life,

Sorry again..x