Open minded means we treat ideas without prejudice or bias, and that of course means for or against, so if you set the same standard for all claims I think that is open minded. It’s not prejudice or bias to point out when claims don’t meet this standard, when they are based on irrational arguments, or are completely unsupported by objective evidnece, or deny accepted scientific facts established by overwhelming objective evidence.
Well it’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, so it’s not bias or prejudice to reject such an argument. I have found many people seem to imagine that being open minded is a metaphor for being suggestible and not subjecting beliefs ideas and claims to critical scrutiny, or that scepticism and an open mind are somehow mutually exclusive.
As long as you submit their claims to the same standard as all others then this conclusion doesn’t mean you’re being closed minded. Claiming the bible or the koran are the immutable and inerrant word of an infallible deity, is the very definition of closed minded, since it leaves no room for doubt, and involves a pretty obvious bias.
I can’t do it either. Ken Hamn of one of my favorite idiots. The man can’t utter three sentences before I facepalm the back of my forehead into the front of my occipital lobe. But it gets worse. My skepticism has had a negative effect on my ability to enjoy movies. I have always hated sports announcers, like those mind-reading idiots know what the players are thinking. I just turn off the sound and watch the sports I enjoy. Open minded? Not when everything that comes out of their mouth is pure garbage.
As long as you set the same standard for what represents garbage, and are not exercising subjective bias or prejudice for or against ideas, then that still seems open minded to me. Some ideas are garbage, it’s how you get there that determines whether this conclusion is open minded.
I have little patience with people who are suggestible, or hold beliefs and posit ideas they have no objective evidnece for, and that violate principles of logic, or contradict scientific facts, and then tell me I am the one being closed minded when I disbelieve them. Since they disbelieve other things that would easily satisfy their criteria for belief, then the bias is clear. Plus there is no belief I would not abandon if the objective evidence demands it. If someone believes the bible or the koran are the immutable and inerrant word of an infallible deity, how is that not bias, and therefore closed minded? FWIW I have only ever see theists claim to be 100% certain of anything, and that claim is closed minded by definition.
Ok being something of a geek, I decided to search for definitions of open minded, as I am hungover and need to do something without getting off the sofa.
“Open-minded people do not jump to conclusions. Instead, they seek out and examine all of the available evidence before forming an opinion.”
“willing to listen to other people, and consider new ideas, suggestions, and opinions.”
“Having an open mindset means being objective when you approach new things, listening to other points of view, and being willing to admit what you don’t know.”
Just for balance lets take a look at scepticism:
adjective
not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
They don’t seem incompatible to me, it is seems that one could be both sceptical and keep an open mind.
Seems to me that since you were already familiar with Meyers’ schtick, turning off the podcast quickly did not indicate you are closed-minded. And if it comes from a second, third, fiftieth person, I don’t think you’re closed-minded for not listening.
Additionally, I don’t think it needs to take a great deal of time to decide if one thinks what’s being said is bupkus. Sometimes one sentence is all they need to say before I stop listening. Being open-minded does not, imo, require giving someone carte blanche to the microphone.
Very good points, I didn’t listen mostly because its the same old run of the mill apologetics and arguments from ignorance/god of the gaps fallacies.
I thought I’d try to listen but within a few minutes Meyers was rolling out the same old garbage I’ve heard a million times from the ID mob and gave up.
I may try again, just to see if Rogan actually pushed back.
Meyer was responsible for a creationist screed bearing the title The Signature in the Cell, in which he peddled the claim that DNA points to his mythical “intelligent designer”. To which the response of actual biologists can be summed up as “ha ha ha ha ha”.
Haven’t read it, but I suspect it contains all the usual creationist canards about “information” and the rest of it.
21mins - Fundermental challenges to creative changes of mutations and selections.
DNA code look like circuits, circuits are made by engineers, intelligence. The hallmarks of intelligent agency.
40mins - Pushing objective morality but not proving it.
47mins - Meyer says that a classical theistic world view is supported by science because the universe appears to have had started and is not eternal.
That’s my commute over and now off to work I go… Will listen to more later.
So far, weapons grade waffle from Mr Meyer and no substance behind his arguments.
Also, it feels like everything he says relies on a ‘god of the gaps’ argument.
What’s wrong with asking if there’s any evidence that intelligence played a role in the creation of the universe? What is “disingenuous” about such a question, are you saying there’s a lie involved?
It’s a perfectly reasonable question just as is the question “is there any sign of intelligence in any radio signals we receive from deep space?”.
Why disparage the Discovery Institute but not the SETI Institute?
What a spectacularly stupid assertion, how does one answer what has not been asked? Yet again we see you evade supporting a claim you’ve made, with a smug sententious lie.
And even if there was a shred of evidence pointing toward something intelligent having any causal link to the universes existance, it wouldnt imply that it is a god or your god, or anyone elses god.
It could well be the god of a different lifeform on a different planet that is completely in contradiction to the beliefs to ID proponents.
But its more likely that every god is man made and the notion something intelligent caused it is total bollocks.