This was the quote found in my weekly offerings which
spurred on increase:
“A great many open minds
should be closed for repairs” – Toledo Blade
It reminded me of this quote:
"The trouble with
having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and
trying to put things in it." - Terry Pratchett
And in turn, this quote, whose origins aren’t quite certain,
but who most people mistakenly attribute to Richard Dawkins, after he quoted it
in his book, and tv show:
“By all means let's be
open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”
.JPG)
Religion runs afoul of the open mind because it has what it
believes to be a monopoly on truth, and an aversion to the alternative thinking
that open minds can foster.
But what do we mean by an ‘open mind’, and just how open
should they be? As the above quotes attest, there are problems with open minds
being too open. But perhaps what we mean here isn’t such a simplistic view of
the open mind.
Rather than thinking of an open mind as a room with an open
doorway, free for anyone or anything to enter, I would like to think of an open
mind as still having a studious guard at the door. The guard of reason, who
filters through the riff-raff of religion and superstition, after they fail to
present the appropriate identification.
An open mind should be thought of as a retronym for a closed
mind, not as a description in itself. It is a strike back against the idea that
there is a closed system; a set of what is right to think about, and what is
wrong.
An open mind is open to ideas in that it is open to consider
them, much like how a single person is open to advances by potential partners;
it doesn’t mean that any new idea that swaggers along will be let in.
On the other hand, we can see a bit of sharpness to the
other edge of this sword and need to be wary. After all even the most open
minded proponent of reason and logic will have to concede that there should be
some form of thing essentially closed for debate. After all to seek to have
reason as the defining filter of what enters the open mind, you would have to
put this form of rational analysis beyond contestation. Sure you could argue
that such a system is demonstrably reliable, and philosophically persuasive, however
then you have only effectively moved your crutch back onto the reliability of
these methods. The question of whether such logic and reason are known to be
true, or if we are just relying on a form of inference and experimental history
to show this is so, still remains open.
When forming our own personal philosophies, there are a few
ways we can go about it. As in the past it seems that these days many people
find it easier to defer their responsibilities in this regard, and simply
outsource their philosophical development and standards off to an external
source, such as religion. However as I am an atheist I prefer what I believe is
the more pragmatic (though also perhaps more taxing) method of having an open
mind, and putting in the effort of manning the door with reason; a hopefully
unbiased arbiter who is less likely to indulge those selling divine revelation
or personal experience to get inside your mind.
At the end of the day, I am not denying that there are a
great deal of religious people out there who are very open minded. However somewhere
in one’s mind, there must be a seed of unmovable thought which we build our
thoughts and values upon; some axiom which we use to define what we are and
what we believe. In this case I believe that it is best to set this kernel in
tune with the rational concepts of reason, scepticism and logic, rather than
faith, obedience and submission.
And that’s my rant for the day. I don’t know how coherent it
is, but perhaps now that I have opened my comments up so that anyone can reply I
will get some interesting rejoinders.
Well, what do you all think; are open minds good, or bad, or
a bit in the middle? Click on the comments link below to let me know.
MM
No comments:
Post a Comment